When exactly do Item Malls become good for a game? Especially a subscription based game. Even if they are cosmetic items, shouldn't these be available to everyone? I mean it's just pure greed, I don't understand how anyone thinks they are a good idea. I can understand if you have some disposable income why you might like a vanity pet or something, but then, the item itself becomes somewhat worthless doesn't it? If anyone can just toss a few bucks to get it? If they aren't cosmetic, the problem becomes more obvious. The game then becomes who is willing to spend the most money to be the most competitive, but I don't understand why you would even play the game to begin with if you're just buying victories? Doesn't that practically defeat the purpose of playing an MMO? It's like paying for a game over screen, or an IWin button. I don't understand anyone who supports an item mall, someone help me understand.
Consider it similiar to magic the gathering or warhammer. Games that you have to buy into are nothing new, and it is of little surprise that at some point the same will happen to mmos. Many people view mmos as hobbies, not as competitive esport, so they are not looking at the game through the same lens as you. To them, buying some gear to add value to their play time is pretty natural, and most are boggled when they see people complain about it.
Again, people are rubberbanding the discussion back to the bad forms of RMT. If this is the one argument you have against RMT, then you're fine with RMT that doesn't "get you ahead", correct? Stuff like unlocking a Class in DDO. It enables you to create a new character and begin leveling it. The class is intended to be balanced with existing ones, so your purchase doesn't advance you nor does it give you any advantage at all (except perhaps that your class might be in higher group demand due to its rarity.)
... Which is exactly why the topic rubberbands. The second there is access that is exclusively gained to a party via transactions external to gameplay itself, then you create an unbalanced playing field, even if all factors involved are designed to be 'balanced'. Even qualitatively, you've examined why in your example, the imbalance occurs. Begin discussion on subjective topics like aesthetics and it's pretty much over.
The only middle ground in the matter is when people accept to see in shades of grey. But since no common terms of 'grey' can be established, it's better off kept in black and white.
Its not unbalanced. Everyone has the CHOICE to use or not use the item shop. Just as everyone has the CHOICE to play endless hours per day. Thats what its all about is CHOICE. It takes time/talent to make money. If I then choose to invest some of that money in the game, to enhance my enjoyment, why should that matter to anyone, who also has the SAME CHOICE?
Actually my choice is to stay 1000 miles away from that kind of games
Im just an old fart but really cant see the point of paying extra so you dont have to play the game that you pay for. Its kinda like paying someone to eat your birthday cake for you.
Honestly, you'll remain baffled by all of this as long as you keep creating a false premise to argue against. I know that pointing that out will never stop you, Ihmo, Obliv and the rest from doing it but one can always hope for miracles.
How is the premise false? Have you never heard or read rather that people spend money because they dont have time to play the game? Reading is a great tool perhaps you should try it.
No I have never heard of games where you can buy your way up so you don't have to play them.
Which games are these?
Perhaps ask those that post about buying because they dont have time to play the game. Funny how those posts get overlooked in the rush to defend what is nothing more than cheating. Amazing how being the best at any cost is so prevalent in the gaming community. Speaks volumes to those who listen.
This means you can't find even ONE example and has to resort to insult?
Tell me how RMT on WOW is for those who have no time to play the game. I bought TWO pets from the wow store (only in-game items you can buy). Tell me how that let me skip me game. That is totally moronic to think that every single RMT item is to skip part of the game and make you advance faster.
In this case, RMT allows me to purchase MORE content. That is the same for the adventure paks in DDO.
You must have missed the part where I said I do not play games that have cash shops. So how they operate in any given game I cannot say. But....as I said. Ask the folks that post about using cash shops as a way to keep up with the people that actually play the games or read some other posts here made from people who have played such games. Something as innocent looking as potions can change the outcome of encounters, even a moron like me can see that without partaking in the "fun".
I'm not the type to spend money on RMT to advance myself, simply because I think it is a waste of my own money to pay to skip game content. That said, why would I then choose to participate in a game where ingame effort can be substituted with a credit card? Whether or not I choose to pay for RMT or not, RMT puts a certain price tag on advancements. Whether it be specific items of worth, or buffs to make one advance more quickly. So in playing a game with RMT and not choosing to buy RMT, I am essentially putting myself at an inherent disadvantage, so again, why should i bother? Additionally, if everyone simply gives into the RMT system and pays for uber items and bonuses, then everyone is at the exact same level as they would be if no one bought anything via RMT. So again I ask, why should I bother? Because a) you are buying additional content (like an adventure pack on DDO, or a new pet on WOW), or b) you are skipping to content you are having more fun with. You wrongly assume all content is the same, with respect to fun to everyone. May be someone just want to start doing the higher level dungeons sooner, because he wants to play with his higher level friend, or for watever other reasons. And this "disadvantage" you talk about .. does not really apply to PvE games. What disadvantage? You cannot go to the highest level dungeons where others can go? But people who start to play earlier has that "advantage" too. Also it is not a real disadvantage if you are not competing with the others. There is no competition in PvE. In fact, i would WELCOME a higher level to adventure with me. And if he buys his way there, better for me since he is using his money to help me adventure.
Additional content is not what I am arguing against. Mini-expansions add additional content, and so long as they still require effort to complete ingame to be rewarded, then there is no problem... provided they are reasonably priced per the content offered.
Skipping over content that you do not enjoy to get to the content you do enjoy... why not simply play a different game that has more of what you enjoy and less of what you dislike? Giving in to purchasing RMT that lets you bypass "grind" content for example, sets a bad precedent. It tells developers that it's okay to make long, drawn out, boring content. In fact, it actually encourages it, because the more "grind" content they have, the more incentive there is for players to pay to bypass said content. Which is why I'm of the mind that I'd much rather just play a game where it is designed well, and in a manner that I prefer. Why should I have to pay extra just to enjoy the game, when I could simply pick a game that is designed closer to my preferences?
And yes, there is a disadvantage, even in a PvE game. You have to compete for mobs, group/raid spots, etc. The person who is more quickly leveled, gear, and/or superior geared because they bought RMT, has a tangible edge against those who do not.
Item malls are very usual for a F2P game, since it's a free, the company only gain from their cash shop.. which is acceptable for the players like me.... in f2p we have a choice whether if we want to use a item mall or not, like in Atlantica online, for me earning gold in game is easier rather than the other games like Flyff it's very hard to earn in game money,.. And also, there's a lot of activity that you can do in AO that's why even though for some, Item mall items are very expensive... That's why I prefer farming and doing FL in game so I can support my necessity in the game and not spending real money...
Item malls are very usual for a F2P game, since it's a free, the company only gain from their cash shop.. which is acceptable for the players like me.... in f2p we have a choice whether if we want to use a item mall or not, like in Atlantica online, for me earning gold in game is easier rather than the other games like Flyff it's very hard to earn in game money,.. And also, there's a lot of activity that you can do in AO that's why even though for some, Item mall items are very expensive... That's why I prefer farming and doing FL in game so I can support my necessity in the game and not spending real money...
I dont' really want to play the game with anyone that can't afford or won't pay the subscription fee. I'm glad there are F2P games for you to play, but I'd rather play a game that you can't play.
Additional content is not what I am arguing against. Mini-expansions add additional content, and so long as they still require effort to complete ingame to be rewarded, then there is no problem... provided they are reasonably priced per the content offered. Skipping over content that you do not enjoy to get to the content you do enjoy... why not simply play a different game that has more of what you enjoy and less of what you dislike? Giving in to purchasing RMT that lets you bypass "grind" content for example, sets a bad precedent. It tells developers that it's okay to make long, drawn out, boring content. In fact, it actually encourages it, because the more "grind" content they have, the more incentive there is for players to pay to bypass said content. Which is why I'm of the mind that I'd much rather just play a game where it is designed well, and in a manner that I prefer. Why should I have to pay extra just to enjoy the game, when I could simply pick a game that is designed closer to my preferences? And yes, there is a disadvantage, even in a PvE game. You have to compete for mobs, group/raid spots, etc. The person who is more quickly leveled, gear, and/or superior geared because they bought RMT, has a tangible edge against those who do not.
Because games are not perfect substitute for one another. There is only ONE DDO online. If I want to play a D&D sorcerer and I found that fun, there is no other MMO to get it.
Hmm ... last time i checked, i do NOT have to compete for mobs in WOW, DDO, guild wars, and many many PvE MMOs. I don't play many RMT MMOs, but i do play DDO from time to time. You are absolutely wrong in saying that I have to compete for mobs. How can i even do that when a) dungeons are instance, and b) you only COOPERATE with other players in those dungeons?
The argument of competition is completely nonsensical in many of these games.
Meh....I don't have the time to be pro in P2P and I don't care to spend the money to be pro in F2P. With that said the only difference between the two models is that one only allows time spent as the advancement mechanism and one allows time spent AND money as the mechanism. I prefer a game with the latter if and only if it helps you get somewhere faster that anyone can get to. If you are buying weapons, armor, etc. that are otherwise inaccessible then the game has an issue.
However...I'd most prefer a game that also adds player skill as a factor in advancement. I want a game where by doing some well I get rewarded. Sort of like beating a level in a video game and getting access to the next level. Grinding via mobs or quests is lame but I guess if the end game managed to be fun it could be worth spending money on a character. I certainly wouldn't want to put in the time though.
IMO the only way Item Malls are good for a game if the items you can buy are purely cosmetic and don't effect gameplay in any way. If someone wants to spend 5 bones on a dumbass pet I say let them, they get something they want and the company makes money.
i dont mind cryptics cash shop model in their heroe mmos and sto, its all purely goofy cosmetic, most if not all the cosmetic items they offer are available if you farm hard enough as well. some will say they sell respects you have to buy, these people are trolls that have to respect daily to be the flavor of the day spec. i dont sub city of X or champs atm, but ive got a lifetime collectors edition sto account and cant wait for friday to play again, i myself dont bother with the cash shop stuff for the most part, although in city of X i did the pack that gave the jetpack travel power and whatnot way back when, i was quite pleased with the cheap micro transaction to upgrade my old standard account with a cool add on they offered later with retail without having to buy a retail key (i doubt i would have bought a key at full price but the MT store was a decent deal).
Again, people are rubberbanding the discussion back to the bad forms of RMT. If this is the one argument you have against RMT, then you're fine with RMT that doesn't "get you ahead", correct? Stuff like unlocking a Class in DDO. It enables you to create a new character and begin leveling it. The class is intended to be balanced with existing ones, so your purchase doesn't advance you nor does it give you any advantage at all (except perhaps that your class might be in higher group demand due to its rarity.)
... Which is exactly why the topic rubberbands. The second there is access that is exclusively gained to a party via transactions external to gameplay itself, then you create an unbalanced playing field, even if all factors involved are designed to be 'balanced'. Even qualitatively, you've examined why in your example, the imbalance occurs. Begin discussion on subjective topics like aesthetics and it's pretty much over.
The only middle ground in the matter is when people accept to see in shades of grey. But since no common terms of 'grey' can be established, it's better off kept in black and white.
No reasonable person would nitpick if their group lacked one of the paid classes in DDO. It's not like roles are pay-exclusive. It's specific playstyles.
If WOW Death Knights were a pay-to-unlock class, and nobody bought it, WOW guilds would still be perfectly capable of completing every dungeon and raid in the game. Nobody really cares whether they specifically have Death Knights in their group. They just need a tank, a healer, and 3 DPS :P
Shades of grey? That's easy:
White. P2P subscription.
Grey. F2P with playstyle and costume unlocks.
Black. F2P "pay-to-achieve" item shop.
White and grey are fine. Black ruins gameplay, so it isn't fine.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'll never play a game with an item mall, thats for sure. Item malls are designed in a way that you HAVE to invest your money in them if you want to stay competitive in the game.
I understand the servers need to be paid, but the kind of advantage/disadvantage that item malls create are really game breaking for me. And I dont understand people that play those game either. I mean, I kinda understand the people that play them "for free" (cheap bastards, easy to understand), but those that invest and support the item mall? I have no clue.
You answered yourself. The people that invest in an item mall do it to stay competitive in the game. Theres nothing wrong with that. If you don't plan on investing then either just do pve or don't play. Or find a game with a balanced item mall. The only thing I really don't agree with is an item mall in a pay to play game.
Again, people are rubberbanding the discussion back to the bad forms of RMT. If this is the one argument you have against RMT, then you're fine with RMT that doesn't "get you ahead", correct? Stuff like unlocking a Class in DDO. It enables you to create a new character and begin leveling it. The class is intended to be balanced with existing ones, so your purchase doesn't advance you nor does it give you any advantage at all (except perhaps that your class might be in higher group demand due to its rarity.)
... Which is exactly why the topic rubberbands. The second there is access that is exclusively gained to a party via transactions external to gameplay itself, then you create an unbalanced playing field, even if all factors involved are designed to be 'balanced'. Even qualitatively, you've examined why in your example, the imbalance occurs. Begin discussion on subjective topics like aesthetics and it's pretty much over.
The only middle ground in the matter is when people accept to see in shades of grey. But since no common terms of 'grey' can be established, it's better off kept in black and white.
No reasonable person would nitpick if their group lacked one of the paid classes in DDO. It's not like roles are pay-exclusive. It's specific playstyles.
If WOW Death Knights were a pay-to-unlock class, and nobody bought it, WOW guilds would still be perfectly capable of completing every dungeon and raid in the game. Nobody really cares whether they specifically have Death Knights in their group. They just need a tank, a healer, and 3 DPS :P
Shades of grey? That's easy:
White. P2P subscription.
Grey. F2P with playstyle and costume unlocks.
Black. F2P "pay-to-achieve" item shop.
White and grey are fine. Black ruins gameplay, so it isn't fine.
Some people only accept your definition of white as a valid payment model that they will accept.
As per your example of WoW and death knights... Heh... you had better believe that a lot of people would have been extremely upset if death knights were only available via paying specifically to buy a new DK character. When the expansion that added Death Knights was released, death knights were extremely overpowered for several months, both in DPS and tanking. So much so to the point where other tanks we sat aside and replaced by DKs, because they were much more effective, as well as various other DPS replaced by DKS. Given that scenario, I'm positive that if death knights were pay to unlock classes, a lot of players would have gotten out their torches and pitchforks, because that class for a long while had distinct advantages.
What a lot of people against RMT are worried about, is that if they give in, what is stopping the developer from subtly starting to develop content in a way that if you didn't have a particular class, as per your example, in your group then the fight was significantly more difficult. And it is possible to design encounters this way by adding certain gimmicks that only a particular class can effectively counter. Similar to how I mentioned before how paying to bypass grind content, what is stopping the developers from taking advantage of that and deciding to add even more boring grind content to try to get you to open your wallet again?
For many people, RMT is just a really nasty can of worms that they would rather not deal with. That is why they prefer subscription based games where they know they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content -- baring expansions -- to be provided to them. Adding RMT to subscription games can force RMT upon many players who are trying to avoid it, which results in a lot of upset people.
No reasonable person would nitpick if their group lacked one of the paid classes in DDO. It's not like roles are pay-exclusive. It's specific playstyles. If WOW Death Knights were a pay-to-unlock class, and nobody bought it, WOW guilds would still be perfectly capable of completing every dungeon and raid in the game. Nobody really cares whether they specifically have Death Knights in their group. They just need a tank, a healer, and 3 DPS :P Shades of grey? That's easy:
White. P2P subscription. Grey. F2P with playstyle and costume unlocks. Black. F2P "pay-to-achieve" item shop.
White and grey are fine. Black ruins gameplay, so it isn't fine.
Close. You glaze over a small issue that renders this whole logic train invalid:
- I am a warrior and you are a warrior. An item drops from an instance that is particularly warrior-desired. I don't invite you to the group.
- I am a warrior and you payed to play a death knight. An item drops from an instance that is particularly warrior-desired. I need 1 more, I am fine with inviting you to the group.
You *are* something different. You have access to not just a seperate playstyle, but an entirely different playing experience that will allow you to out-gear, etc the 'competition' simply because you are a select role that is less represented.
This fits your 'if no one was a role' situation as well.
The second you offer exclusivity based on outside means from gameplay, you render the whole gaming experience biased towards those able to afford the P2P.
White and black are fine. Grey ruins gameplay. There is no happy middle ground.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Just to play devils advocate here, what is the moral difference between pay to play and item shop pay to achieve? In both styles, you cant achieve fair abilities without paying. The only difference is that in pay to achieve item shop, some people can play for free with less abilities. You could argue that pay to play is essentially an extreme version of the pay to achieve item shop. You are essentially buying an "account" for a monthly fee from a "shop".
For example in pay to achieve item shop, players that don't pay have a disadvantage against players that pay.
The same applies to pay to play, since players that don't play don't even have a character and so any theoretical enemy they want to fight in pay to play will win by default since the player that is not paying does not have a character.
Just to play devils advocate here, what is the moral difference between pay to play and item shop pay to achieve? In both styles, you cant achieve fair abilities without paying. The only difference is that in pay to achieve item shop, some people can play for free with less abilities. You could argue that pay to play is essentially an extreme version of the pay to achieve item shop. You are essentially buying an "account" for a monthly fee from a "shop".
For example in pay to achieve item shop, players that don't pay have a disadvantage against players that pay. The same applies to pay to play, since players that don't play don't even have a character and so any theoretical enemy they want to fight in pay to play will win by default since the player that is not paying does not have a character.
For me personally, I know that in a P2P game that I pay so much a month, no more, no less. The developer can't change content so that I suddenly pay more or less per month. The worst they could do is make content long and boring so that I have to play more months, in which case if it's long and boring I might just walk away. For a F2P itemshop game however, developers have a lot more power in artificially limiting and gating progression based on exactly how much you pay. In other words, "free to play" isn't so free, and in some cases ends up costing vastly more than a P2P subscription based game.
Subscription based games simply seem a lot more forward and honest to me. In a F2P game there is a lot of potential for underhanded tactics from developers to try to manipulate players into purchasing RMT, which to be honest, I'd much rather just avoid that headache completely and have everything out on the table in a forward and honest manner which is what subscription based models offer.
For me, even what you described it gamebreaking. Some players having a distinct advantage over others based on how much money is shelled out. I'll never play an item mall game obviously, I'm just baffled by people who do, I don't understand how paying for virtual items or advantages is fun or engaging.
Some of us don't care that the next guy over bought more digital milk for his glass and just enjoy the free milk in ours.
Except that we aren't talking about digital milk. We are talking about weapons, armor, consumables.
In a gear-centric game where the items you posess heavily influence your success in PvP or PvE encounters, and Item Mall creates an unfair advantage to those who aren't in a position to spend the same kind of money.
As a casual gaming, I'll ceed the point that people who have more time to play a game that I will have more/better stuff. I'm okay with that.....they sacraficed time away from RL and actually played the game to get the leg up they have.
People throwing money at items that impact my experience when fighting them (or competeing against their clan) is not okay.
When I played Lineage 2, people literally spent thousands of dollars on ingame currency and items via the black market.....and they dominated.
If you want to under cut the farmers....fix your code or make currency / items easy to get.
For many people, RMT is just a really nasty can of worms that they would rather not deal with. That is why they prefer subscription based games where they know they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content -- baring expansions -- to be provided to them. Adding RMT to subscription games can force RMT upon many players who are trying to avoid it, which results in a lot of upset people.
Really? And you have proved for that? I don't see people quitting WOW because Blizzard is selling pets and suddenly they don know " they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content" anymore.
In fact, I have yet to meet a person in WOW who has a problem with the virtual pets. I paid for them and i think it is a good idea.
Ditto for DDO. Its population GROWS tremendously (including their sub rates) AFTER they turned F2P with an item shop.
I think the population who has a problem with RMT is a lot SMALLER than you think.
For many people, RMT is just a really nasty can of worms that they would rather not deal with. That is why they prefer subscription based games where they know they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content -- baring expansions -- to be provided to them. Adding RMT to subscription games can force RMT upon many players who are trying to avoid it, which results in a lot of upset people.
Really? And you have proved for that? I don't see people quitting WOW because Blizzard is selling pets and suddenly they don know " they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content" anymore. In fact, I have yet to meet a person in WOW who has a problem with the virtual pets. I paid for them and i think it is a good idea. Ditto for DDO. Its population GROWS tremendously (including their sub rates) AFTER they turned F2P with an item shop. I think the population who has a problem with RMT is a lot SMALLER than you think.
The non-combat pets are for the most part pretty useless in terms of the actual game, so most players don't care. Most of the people I have talked to think it's ridiculous to charge $10 for the pets, and you're right, a smaller portion of people outright dislike the idea of it. But again, it was only two non-combat pets they added for directly paying cash for them. I'm sure that if Blizzard started to add more items, the amount of people bothered by it would grow, especially if they started to outright sell gold, items, or characters.
As per not meeting someone who has a problem with the virtual pets, I play WoW, and I do have a problem with it. Not so much what it is specifically, as the precedent that it sets and the direction WoW has slowly been teetering towards between the Warcraft card game ingame items, the recruit a "friend" bonuses, and now the Blizzard pet store.
I'm vocal because I want Blizzard, and other developers, to know that if RMT starts to become too invasive, I'm gone. Why? Because I like the game how it is, which is without RMT. If I and others don't make it clear what we do and don't want, Developers won't learn that too much, or the wrong types of, RMT is going to drive off a portion of their customers when they ruin their products.
I just find it easier to not have RMT involved in any manner, because it always ends up heading towards that slippery slope where the people on the business end only see dollar signs and push for things that ruin the game.
Short of a pure troll comment... which means one is about to be used:
A very well expressed post Ceridith. To the point, elegant and impactful. Post of the day in my book.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I'm vocal because I want Blizzard, and other developers, to know that if RMT starts to become too invasive, I'm gone. Why? Because I like the game how it is, which is without RMT. If I and others don't make it clear what we do and don't want, Developers won't learn that too much, or the wrong types of, RMT is going to drive off a portion of their customers when they ruin their products.
Actually the developers may not be learning the lesson you want them to learn. Take DDO as an example. It turned from P2P to F2P with an item shop, exactly what you don't want to see happen to games. What happened? Their player base increased tremendously and they INCREASE (not decrease) the subscription rate.
I have no doubt some small portion of their customer base is driven off, but with this solid increase in subs, i think not only they didn't ruin their product, it points a way for other products to follow.
Originally posted by Ceridith store. I'm vocal because I want Blizzard, and other developers, to know that if RMT starts to become too invasive, I'm gone. Why? Because I like the game how it is, which is without RMT. If I and others don't make it clear what we do and don't want, Developers won't learn that too much, or the wrong types of, RMT is going to drive off a portion of their customers when they ruin their products. I just find it easier to not have RMT involved in any manner, because it always ends up heading towards that slippery slope where the people on the business end only see dollar signs and push for things that ruin the game.
Alas, few developers read these forums so you are pretty much preaching to the choir.
Meanwhile the Dev's are listening to the suits who tell them to figure out new ways to pay off the massive expenses these games incur to bring to market.
And many customers seem willing to accept alternate payment models in order to keep playing games they enjoy.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm vocal because I want Blizzard, and other developers, to know that if RMT starts to become too invasive, I'm gone. Why? Because I like the game how it is, which is without RMT. If I and others don't make it clear what we do and don't want, Developers won't learn that too much, or the wrong types of, RMT is going to drive off a portion of their customers when they ruin their products. Actually the developers may not be learning the lesson you want them to learn. Take DDO as an example. It turned from P2P to F2P with an item shop, exactly what you don't want to see happen to games. What happened? Their player base increased tremendously and they INCREASE (not decrease) the subscription rate. I have no doubt some small portion of their customer base is driven off, but with this solid increase in subs, i think not only they didn't ruin their product, it points a way for other products to follow.
Excellent points. In much the same way that Blizzard has demonstrated that a vast market exists for theme park games, DDO has demonstrated that its business model(when applied as it is) can also attract sustained subscriptions. It will be interesting to see how this works out over the next few years.
I'm vocal because I want Blizzard, and other developers, to know that if RMT starts to become too invasive, I'm gone. Why? Because I like the game how it is, which is without RMT. If I and others don't make it clear what we do and don't want, Developers won't learn that too much, or the wrong types of, RMT is going to drive off a portion of their customers when they ruin their products. Actually the developers may not be learning the lesson you want them to learn. Take DDO as an example. It turned from P2P to F2P with an item shop, exactly what you don't want to see happen to games. What happened? Their player base increased tremendously and they INCREASE (not decrease) the subscription rate. I have no doubt some small portion of their customer base is driven off, but with this solid increase in subs, i think not only they didn't ruin their product, it points a way for other products to follow.
Excellent points. In much the same way that Blizzard has demonstrated that a vast market exists for theme park games, DDO has demonstrated that its business model(when applied as it is) can also attract sustained subscriptions. It will be interesting to see how this works out over the next few years.
To be fair, DDO uses a mixture of F2P & standard P2P model. I believe you get a large number (but NOT unlimited) points to purchase stuff in the RMT shop if you subscribe.
I kind of like this model because it eliminates the risks of spending too much (just go sub) while maintains the flexibility of just playing a little and pay nothing (or almost nothing).
Just to play devils advocate here, what is the moral difference between pay to play and item shop pay to achieve? In both styles, you cant achieve fair abilities without paying. The only difference is that in pay to achieve item shop, some people can play for free with less abilities. You could argue that pay to play is essentially an extreme version of the pay to achieve item shop. You are essentially buying an "account" for a monthly fee from a "shop".
For example in pay to achieve item shop, players that don't pay have a disadvantage against players that pay. The same applies to pay to play, since players that don't play don't even have a character and so any theoretical enemy they want to fight in pay to play will win by default since the player that is not paying does not have a character.
The difference is, in one game everyone is the same. In the other game, there are many different types of players.
In P2P everyone that killed 200 Mobs is level 2. Everyone that completed 50 quests is level 5. What if I don't want to do 50 quests to be level 5? Sorry, everyone is the same. Either you do 50 quests, or you don't get level 5. It takes everyone roughly the same time to do 50 quests. You can't buy any health potions or xp potions to make it go faster.
In f2P, everyone is different based on a combination of content, plus items purchased.
How did you get to level 5? Did you buy health potions, or just grind mobs? Did you buy some health potions, or a lot of health potions? I don't know.
Should I just grind mobs, or buy some health potions? How many health potions or xp potiions should I buy?
This decision doesn't exist in P2P.
There is no decision to make. Either you do the content, or you dont' progress. You progress the same as everyone else, because there is nothing to buy.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but that's the difference.
Comments
Consider it similiar to magic the gathering or warhammer. Games that you have to buy into are nothing new, and it is of little surprise that at some point the same will happen to mmos. Many people view mmos as hobbies, not as competitive esport, so they are not looking at the game through the same lens as you. To them, buying some gear to add value to their play time is pretty natural, and most are boggled when they see people complain about it.
... Which is exactly why the topic rubberbands. The second there is access that is exclusively gained to a party via transactions external to gameplay itself, then you create an unbalanced playing field, even if all factors involved are designed to be 'balanced'. Even qualitatively, you've examined why in your example, the imbalance occurs. Begin discussion on subjective topics like aesthetics and it's pretty much over.
The only middle ground in the matter is when people accept to see in shades of grey. But since no common terms of 'grey' can be established, it's better off kept in black and white.
Its not unbalanced. Everyone has the CHOICE to use or not use the item shop. Just as everyone has the CHOICE to play endless hours per day. Thats what its all about is CHOICE. It takes time/talent to make money. If I then choose to invest some of that money in the game, to enhance my enjoyment, why should that matter to anyone, who also has the SAME CHOICE?
Im just an old fart but really cant see the point of paying extra so you dont have to play the game that you pay for. Its kinda like paying someone to eat your birthday cake for you.
Honestly, you'll remain baffled by all of this as long as you keep creating a false premise to argue against. I know that pointing that out will never stop you, Ihmo, Obliv and the rest from doing it but one can always hope for miracles.
How is the premise false? Have you never heard or read rather that people spend money because they dont have time to play the game? Reading is a great tool perhaps you should try it.
No I have never heard of games where you can buy your way up so you don't have to play them.
Which games are these?
Perhaps ask those that post about buying because they dont have time to play the game. Funny how those posts get overlooked in the rush to defend what is nothing more than cheating. Amazing how being the best at any cost is so prevalent in the gaming community. Speaks volumes to those who listen.
This means you can't find even ONE example and has to resort to insult?
Tell me how RMT on WOW is for those who have no time to play the game. I bought TWO pets from the wow store (only in-game items you can buy). Tell me how that let me skip me game. That is totally moronic to think that every single RMT item is to skip part of the game and make you advance faster.
In this case, RMT allows me to purchase MORE content. That is the same for the adventure paks in DDO.
You must have missed the part where I said I do not play games that have cash shops. So how they operate in any given game I cannot say. But....as I said. Ask the folks that post about using cash shops as a way to keep up with the people that actually play the games or read some other posts here made from people who have played such games. Something as innocent looking as potions can change the outcome of encounters, even a moron like me can see that without partaking in the "fun".
Additional content is not what I am arguing against. Mini-expansions add additional content, and so long as they still require effort to complete ingame to be rewarded, then there is no problem... provided they are reasonably priced per the content offered.
Skipping over content that you do not enjoy to get to the content you do enjoy... why not simply play a different game that has more of what you enjoy and less of what you dislike? Giving in to purchasing RMT that lets you bypass "grind" content for example, sets a bad precedent. It tells developers that it's okay to make long, drawn out, boring content. In fact, it actually encourages it, because the more "grind" content they have, the more incentive there is for players to pay to bypass said content. Which is why I'm of the mind that I'd much rather just play a game where it is designed well, and in a manner that I prefer. Why should I have to pay extra just to enjoy the game, when I could simply pick a game that is designed closer to my preferences?
And yes, there is a disadvantage, even in a PvE game. You have to compete for mobs, group/raid spots, etc. The person who is more quickly leveled, gear, and/or superior geared because they bought RMT, has a tangible edge against those who do not.
Item malls are very usual for a F2P game, since it's a free, the company only gain from their cash shop.. which is acceptable for the players like me.... in f2p we have a choice whether if we want to use a item mall or not, like in Atlantica online, for me earning gold in game is easier rather than the other games like Flyff it's very hard to earn in game money,.. And also, there's a lot of activity that you can do in AO that's why even though for some, Item mall items are very expensive... That's why I prefer farming and doing FL in game so I can support my necessity in the game and not spending real money...
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm138/Syreange/mysigcopy-1.jpg
I dont' really want to play the game with anyone that can't afford or won't pay the subscription fee. I'm glad there are F2P games for you to play, but I'd rather play a game that you can't play.
Because games are not perfect substitute for one another. There is only ONE DDO online. If I want to play a D&D sorcerer and I found that fun, there is no other MMO to get it.
Hmm ... last time i checked, i do NOT have to compete for mobs in WOW, DDO, guild wars, and many many PvE MMOs. I don't play many RMT MMOs, but i do play DDO from time to time. You are absolutely wrong in saying that I have to compete for mobs. How can i even do that when a) dungeons are instance, and b) you only COOPERATE with other players in those dungeons?
The argument of competition is completely nonsensical in many of these games.
Meh....I don't have the time to be pro in P2P and I don't care to spend the money to be pro in F2P. With that said the only difference between the two models is that one only allows time spent as the advancement mechanism and one allows time spent AND money as the mechanism. I prefer a game with the latter if and only if it helps you get somewhere faster that anyone can get to. If you are buying weapons, armor, etc. that are otherwise inaccessible then the game has an issue.
However...I'd most prefer a game that also adds player skill as a factor in advancement. I want a game where by doing some well I get rewarded. Sort of like beating a level in a video game and getting access to the next level. Grinding via mobs or quests is lame but I guess if the end game managed to be fun it could be worth spending money on a character. I certainly wouldn't want to put in the time though.
IMO the only way Item Malls are good for a game if the items you can buy are purely cosmetic and don't effect gameplay in any way. If someone wants to spend 5 bones on a dumbass pet I say let them, they get something they want and the company makes money.
i dont mind cryptics cash shop model in their heroe mmos and sto, its all purely goofy cosmetic, most if not all the cosmetic items they offer are available if you farm hard enough as well. some will say they sell respects you have to buy, these people are trolls that have to respect daily to be the flavor of the day spec. i dont sub city of X or champs atm, but ive got a lifetime collectors edition sto account and cant wait for friday to play again, i myself dont bother with the cash shop stuff for the most part, although in city of X i did the pack that gave the jetpack travel power and whatnot way back when, i was quite pleased with the cheap micro transaction to upgrade my old standard account with a cool add on they offered later with retail without having to buy a retail key (i doubt i would have bought a key at full price but the MT store was a decent deal).
... Which is exactly why the topic rubberbands. The second there is access that is exclusively gained to a party via transactions external to gameplay itself, then you create an unbalanced playing field, even if all factors involved are designed to be 'balanced'. Even qualitatively, you've examined why in your example, the imbalance occurs. Begin discussion on subjective topics like aesthetics and it's pretty much over.
The only middle ground in the matter is when people accept to see in shades of grey. But since no common terms of 'grey' can be established, it's better off kept in black and white.
No reasonable person would nitpick if their group lacked one of the paid classes in DDO. It's not like roles are pay-exclusive. It's specific playstyles.
If WOW Death Knights were a pay-to-unlock class, and nobody bought it, WOW guilds would still be perfectly capable of completing every dungeon and raid in the game. Nobody really cares whether they specifically have Death Knights in their group. They just need a tank, a healer, and 3 DPS :P
Shades of grey? That's easy:
White and grey are fine. Black ruins gameplay, so it isn't fine.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You answered yourself. The people that invest in an item mall do it to stay competitive in the game. Theres nothing wrong with that. If you don't plan on investing then either just do pve or don't play. Or find a game with a balanced item mall. The only thing I really don't agree with is an item mall in a pay to play game.
... Which is exactly why the topic rubberbands. The second there is access that is exclusively gained to a party via transactions external to gameplay itself, then you create an unbalanced playing field, even if all factors involved are designed to be 'balanced'. Even qualitatively, you've examined why in your example, the imbalance occurs. Begin discussion on subjective topics like aesthetics and it's pretty much over.
The only middle ground in the matter is when people accept to see in shades of grey. But since no common terms of 'grey' can be established, it's better off kept in black and white.
No reasonable person would nitpick if their group lacked one of the paid classes in DDO. It's not like roles are pay-exclusive. It's specific playstyles.
If WOW Death Knights were a pay-to-unlock class, and nobody bought it, WOW guilds would still be perfectly capable of completing every dungeon and raid in the game. Nobody really cares whether they specifically have Death Knights in their group. They just need a tank, a healer, and 3 DPS :P
Shades of grey? That's easy:
White and grey are fine. Black ruins gameplay, so it isn't fine.
Some people only accept your definition of white as a valid payment model that they will accept.
As per your example of WoW and death knights... Heh... you had better believe that a lot of people would have been extremely upset if death knights were only available via paying specifically to buy a new DK character. When the expansion that added Death Knights was released, death knights were extremely overpowered for several months, both in DPS and tanking. So much so to the point where other tanks we sat aside and replaced by DKs, because they were much more effective, as well as various other DPS replaced by DKS. Given that scenario, I'm positive that if death knights were pay to unlock classes, a lot of players would have gotten out their torches and pitchforks, because that class for a long while had distinct advantages.
What a lot of people against RMT are worried about, is that if they give in, what is stopping the developer from subtly starting to develop content in a way that if you didn't have a particular class, as per your example, in your group then the fight was significantly more difficult. And it is possible to design encounters this way by adding certain gimmicks that only a particular class can effectively counter. Similar to how I mentioned before how paying to bypass grind content, what is stopping the developers from taking advantage of that and deciding to add even more boring grind content to try to get you to open your wallet again?
For many people, RMT is just a really nasty can of worms that they would rather not deal with. That is why they prefer subscription based games where they know they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content -- baring expansions -- to be provided to them. Adding RMT to subscription games can force RMT upon many players who are trying to avoid it, which results in a lot of upset people.
Close. You glaze over a small issue that renders this whole logic train invalid:
- I am a warrior and you are a warrior. An item drops from an instance that is particularly warrior-desired. I don't invite you to the group.
- I am a warrior and you payed to play a death knight. An item drops from an instance that is particularly warrior-desired. I need 1 more, I am fine with inviting you to the group.
You *are* something different. You have access to not just a seperate playstyle, but an entirely different playing experience that will allow you to out-gear, etc the 'competition' simply because you are a select role that is less represented.
This fits your 'if no one was a role' situation as well.
The second you offer exclusivity based on outside means from gameplay, you render the whole gaming experience biased towards those able to afford the P2P.
White and black are fine. Grey ruins gameplay. There is no happy middle ground.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Just to play devils advocate here, what is the moral difference between pay to play and item shop pay to achieve? In both styles, you cant achieve fair abilities without paying. The only difference is that in pay to achieve item shop, some people can play for free with less abilities. You could argue that pay to play is essentially an extreme version of the pay to achieve item shop. You are essentially buying an "account" for a monthly fee from a "shop".
For example in pay to achieve item shop, players that don't pay have a disadvantage against players that pay.
The same applies to pay to play, since players that don't play don't even have a character and so any theoretical enemy they want to fight in pay to play will win by default since the player that is not paying does not have a character.
For me personally, I know that in a P2P game that I pay so much a month, no more, no less. The developer can't change content so that I suddenly pay more or less per month. The worst they could do is make content long and boring so that I have to play more months, in which case if it's long and boring I might just walk away. For a F2P itemshop game however, developers have a lot more power in artificially limiting and gating progression based on exactly how much you pay. In other words, "free to play" isn't so free, and in some cases ends up costing vastly more than a P2P subscription based game.
Subscription based games simply seem a lot more forward and honest to me. In a F2P game there is a lot of potential for underhanded tactics from developers to try to manipulate players into purchasing RMT, which to be honest, I'd much rather just avoid that headache completely and have everything out on the table in a forward and honest manner which is what subscription based models offer.
Some of us don't care that the next guy over bought more digital milk for his glass and just enjoy the free milk in ours.
Except that we aren't talking about digital milk. We are talking about weapons, armor, consumables.
In a gear-centric game where the items you posess heavily influence your success in PvP or PvE encounters, and Item Mall creates an unfair advantage to those who aren't in a position to spend the same kind of money.
As a casual gaming, I'll ceed the point that people who have more time to play a game that I will have more/better stuff. I'm okay with that.....they sacraficed time away from RL and actually played the game to get the leg up they have.
People throwing money at items that impact my experience when fighting them (or competeing against their clan) is not okay.
When I played Lineage 2, people literally spent thousands of dollars on ingame currency and items via the black market.....and they dominated.
If you want to under cut the farmers....fix your code or make currency / items easy to get.
For many people, RMT is just a really nasty can of worms that they would rather not deal with. That is why they prefer subscription based games where they know they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content -- baring expansions -- to be provided to them. Adding RMT to subscription games can force RMT upon many players who are trying to avoid it, which results in a lot of upset people.
Really? And you have proved for that? I don't see people quitting WOW because Blizzard is selling pets and suddenly they don know " they will spend X dollars a month for all content, and future content" anymore.
In fact, I have yet to meet a person in WOW who has a problem with the virtual pets. I paid for them and i think it is a good idea.
Ditto for DDO. Its population GROWS tremendously (including their sub rates) AFTER they turned F2P with an item shop.
I think the population who has a problem with RMT is a lot SMALLER than you think.
The non-combat pets are for the most part pretty useless in terms of the actual game, so most players don't care. Most of the people I have talked to think it's ridiculous to charge $10 for the pets, and you're right, a smaller portion of people outright dislike the idea of it. But again, it was only two non-combat pets they added for directly paying cash for them. I'm sure that if Blizzard started to add more items, the amount of people bothered by it would grow, especially if they started to outright sell gold, items, or characters.
As per not meeting someone who has a problem with the virtual pets, I play WoW, and I do have a problem with it. Not so much what it is specifically, as the precedent that it sets and the direction WoW has slowly been teetering towards between the Warcraft card game ingame items, the recruit a "friend" bonuses, and now the Blizzard pet store.
I'm vocal because I want Blizzard, and other developers, to know that if RMT starts to become too invasive, I'm gone. Why? Because I like the game how it is, which is without RMT. If I and others don't make it clear what we do and don't want, Developers won't learn that too much, or the wrong types of, RMT is going to drive off a portion of their customers when they ruin their products.
I just find it easier to not have RMT involved in any manner, because it always ends up heading towards that slippery slope where the people on the business end only see dollar signs and push for things that ruin the game.
Short of a pure troll comment... which means one is about to be used:
A very well expressed post Ceridith. To the point, elegant and impactful. Post of the day in my book.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I'm vocal because I want Blizzard, and other developers, to know that if RMT starts to become too invasive, I'm gone. Why? Because I like the game how it is, which is without RMT. If I and others don't make it clear what we do and don't want, Developers won't learn that too much, or the wrong types of, RMT is going to drive off a portion of their customers when they ruin their products.
Actually the developers may not be learning the lesson you want them to learn. Take DDO as an example. It turned from P2P to F2P with an item shop, exactly what you don't want to see happen to games. What happened? Their player base increased tremendously and they INCREASE (not decrease) the subscription rate.
I have no doubt some small portion of their customer base is driven off, but with this solid increase in subs, i think not only they didn't ruin their product, it points a way for other products to follow.
Alas, few developers read these forums so you are pretty much preaching to the choir.
Meanwhile the Dev's are listening to the suits who tell them to figure out new ways to pay off the massive expenses these games incur to bring to market.
And many customers seem willing to accept alternate payment models in order to keep playing games they enjoy.
Guess how this is all going to turn out?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Excellent points. In much the same way that Blizzard has demonstrated that a vast market exists for theme park games, DDO has demonstrated that its business model(when applied as it is) can also attract sustained subscriptions. It will be interesting to see how this works out over the next few years.
Excellent points. In much the same way that Blizzard has demonstrated that a vast market exists for theme park games, DDO has demonstrated that its business model(when applied as it is) can also attract sustained subscriptions. It will be interesting to see how this works out over the next few years.
To be fair, DDO uses a mixture of F2P & standard P2P model. I believe you get a large number (but NOT unlimited) points to purchase stuff in the RMT shop if you subscribe.
I kind of like this model because it eliminates the risks of spending too much (just go sub) while maintains the flexibility of just playing a little and pay nothing (or almost nothing).
The difference is, in one game everyone is the same. In the other game, there are many different types of players.
In P2P everyone that killed 200 Mobs is level 2. Everyone that completed 50 quests is level 5. What if I don't want to do 50 quests to be level 5? Sorry, everyone is the same. Either you do 50 quests, or you don't get level 5. It takes everyone roughly the same time to do 50 quests. You can't buy any health potions or xp potions to make it go faster.
In f2P, everyone is different based on a combination of content, plus items purchased.
How did you get to level 5? Did you buy health potions, or just grind mobs? Did you buy some health potions, or a lot of health potions? I don't know.
Should I just grind mobs, or buy some health potions? How many health potions or xp potiions should I buy?
This decision doesn't exist in P2P.
There is no decision to make. Either you do the content, or you dont' progress. You progress the same as everyone else, because there is nothing to buy.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but that's the difference.