Players are going to consider the total amount of money they're paying vs. the quality and quantity of content they're getting -- if a bad game is trying to sell more zones on top of the "box cost" and sub fee, players aren't going to accept that.
But it has nothing to do with selling zones being a bad thing, and everything to do with the game not offering sufficient value-per-cost.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Segregating playerbase based on external-to-gameplay mechanics I find largely un-immersive. We're in this interactive world together, and denying access to some is akin to denying opportunity.
I guess this is why I'm a fan of P2P models. Everyone is on equal footing, and you make what you can of it. The results aren't skewed by imbalanced opportunity.
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 will start with... your ability to quote could be greatly improved. I will fix this, so that it can be followed.
Ummm...I do what most people do...type in the quotes. =P
Originally posted by Superman0X
So, you are saying that since an MMO has been doing it for over 10 years, and is one of the games that has defined the market as a whole... that it has no bearing on this?
Originally posted by johnmatthais
No. I'm saying that EQ is such a massive game that this argument is hardly worth having. Given that you can get all 13 old xpacs plus the new one for only $40, it's even less of a viable argument.
So, you are saying that it isn't the practice, but the price. If they were to charge less, it would be ok.
No, it's the fact that you're arguing with ridiculously low prices. What sane man does that?
Originally posted by Superman0X
The definition of P2P is that you pay BEFORE you get to play. I can show many examples of this (and have given clear explanations)... but can you show examples of P2P that do NOT charge for content?
Originally posted by johnmatthais
Ryzom (no client fee either), Wurm (no client fee either), Face of Mankind (no client fee either), EvE ($5 activation fee), Perpetuum (not sure yet), LOVE (no client either), and I could continue on like this. The costs of all of those games is simply to make sure that they are able to sustain servers and pay their way in life by charging a monthly fee.
You have referenced several F2P games (supporting MY statement, not yours) one P2P that has a small fee (I guessing you are going with, if it is cheap, it doesn't count)and two that even you don't know about. So, yes you could continue... but you would just point out that by definition P2P charges for stuff... and that stuff is content.
How do I not know what I'm talking about? Perpetuum I simply meant I don't know if it'll charge an activation fee. There will be a low monthly fee. Ryzom doesn't cost anything but monthly, and has the damn Ryzom Ring free with it. Face of Mankind is freemium and doesn't cost anything beyond the monthly fee and the premium part is mainly aesthetics or if you want a leadership position, no cash shop. LOVE has infinite amounts of planned content that won't cost anything but your monthly fee. EvE doesn't cost anything but a monthly fee and a $5 activation fee, no cash shop, no extra paid content. Wurm's free part is just an unlimited free trial and they don't charge anything beyond a monthly fee.
You have also tried to argue that their fees are 'justified' in some way, and as such should not be considered as fees.
None of this matters. It is a commercial deal. Quid pro quo. This goes back a few thousand years... but I am guessing that you will argue what this doesnt apply either, because it is only a 'little money'. What, 30 pieces of silver?
I'm not justifying anything. Have you ever run a server? It costs. A lot. If they're not going to charge a box fee or have a cash shop and the game is good, then they damn well deserve to be making a profit off of a monthly fee.
I suppose next you're going to be pissed because you have to buy a DVD player and pay for DVDs which is essentially "paying for content." Get a life.
Nope, I should pay a monthly fee and a box fee and then get ALL the content. Period. There should be no "new zones" that I have to pay for AFTER buying the game AND paying $15 a month for the "privilege" of playing the game.
I don't really get involved in these debates, though. I vote with my wallet, like all consumers should. If a game starts nickel-and-dime-ing me to death, I quit paying for it and if I can, dispute the charges with my credit card company. You can often get a refund by disputing charges and in America there is absolutely *no* retaliation for disputing a charge, or any possible effect it can have on your credit score. From personal knowledge I can say with absolute certainty that the number of times you dispute charges or IF you have ever disputed a charge is NOT part of the credit-score formula; in the US among the three main credit-scoring companies. (Equifax, Trans Union & Experian.)
You don't even need to provide a *reason* for disputing a charge other than "service provider didn't deliver what I thought they would deliver" - period. Enough people start doing this and the gaming companies will take note and listen. They pay for these chargebacks; the consumer does NOT.
Nothing makes me more frustrated and sad than consumers not exercising their rights. You DO realize that as consumers, we pretty much decide what quality we're willing to deal with and pay for - right?
If it is a large zone and VERY high quality content then I might not mind paying $2 for a new zone.
I really wonder how many zones WoW Classic has and how much that breaks down in price if you were to go by how much it cost when it fist came out.
But a few bucks a zone with outstanding content and happens to be huge, sure why not. This is also assuming that I didn't pay for a full priced $50 box to start. This might be a great strategy to use for a company that is small and trying to push out new zones every month or so in addition to the ones it could manage to produce for release. So if it could only release 5 zones and then offered the Retail Box for only $15 and maybe a $5-$10 a month charge do to it being unfinnished I wouldn't mind.
At least this way then can make money to keep them going and pay their bills while making new content with their system.
Do not try to be a great gamer, just be a gamer. Cause, I don't care how good you are anyway.
If it is a large zone and VERY high quality content then I might not mind paying $2 for a new zone. I really wonder how many zones WoW Classic has and how much that breaks down in price if you were to go by how much it cost when it fist came out. But a few bucks a zone with outstanding content and happens to be huge, sure why not. This is also assuming that I didn't pay for a full priced $50 box to start. This might be a great strategy to use for a company that is small and trying to push out new zones every month or so in addition to the ones it could manage to produce for release. So if it could only release 5 zones and then offered the Retail Box for only $15 and maybe a $5-$10 a month charge do to it being unfinnished I wouldn't mind. At least this way then can make money to keep them going and pay their bills while making new content with their system.
There is a game that uses this model, although I forgot the name.
Instead of buying a box, you buy zones. Once you purchase a zone, you can play in that zone forever. Well, as long as the game stays active.
If i am paying 50$ for the game and then 15$/month and then 50$ for each expansion, i would expect to have everything available to me whenever i want.
example: LOTRO: 50$ (ok i got a deal and got it for 10) and then 15$/month i get to go and play everything that is available in that game. i get to play the new zones when i start and i get to play the end zones whenever i get there, no matter how long it takes.
now if the client is free and i am not paying 15$/month. well i can expect to play a limited part of the game, like a demo of some sort. or a trial. now if i like the trial/demo i can decide to buy the game. DDO is an awesome model, and its probably the only F2P game i have ever put money into. I got to play the beginer quests and some of the more challenging and i really liked them, i liked how the "trial/demo" played and i wanted more. since i am not paying 15$ a month nor the client. i can play all i want how long i want until i reach a certain checkpoint where if i want to keep going i have to buy "dungeon packs" which include zones quests and dungeons. it cost me 5-10$ for a specific range.
so i paid 0 for the game, 0 per month and i get to play as fast or as casual as i want. whenever i reach a certain checkpoint, say it takes me 3 months, instead of paying 50+15+15+15 (95), i only paid 10. for the same 3 months.
and honestly i would be fine with MMOs that you have to pay for the box but not have a subscription fee and you would have to pay for zones or lvl ups. for example. box gets you all zones lvl 1 to 30. to get from 31 to 60 you need to buy it for say 10$ from 60-90 cost 20$. there would be multiple lvl 60-90 zones so each would cost 20$. (but once you buy them they are available for ever on that account for any character you make
you could buy all the zones for the same price people pay for life subs
but having 15$/month AND pay per zones (not counting expansions)? i mean WTF! so now its Pay to play, Pay to level, pay to zone, pay for clothes. so you end up paying 60-100$/month on a video game... no thanks.
I think some are misunderstanding the type of "zone" purchase cryptic is trying to sell. It is a zone that is alleged to be the size of monster island. I guess that is an ok size for champions but is a very very small sized zone compared in any way to wow. also wow and other companies has other things other than the extra real estate and the quests that come with it. They have raised level caps, new mounts, new races, new class/powers, more raid content and so on. This zone is mid lvl content that doesnt solve the content gap the game suffers for lvl 33-37.
For them to charge whatever fee that doesnt add anything that the majority of the games community wants is nothing but a money grab. It is likely content that was to buggy and should have been included in the initial release of the game.
I would ask those of you that have played more games than I, this. Have any P2P games come out and asked for the subscriber to pay for some limited content or heck whatever content, within 5 months of going live?
I would ask those of you that have played more games than I, this. Have any P2P games come out and asked for the subscriber to pay for some limited content or heck whatever content, within 5 months of going live?
I believe EQ2 did with their adventure packs. If it wasn't within five months it was darn close to something like that.
The concept failed miserably too which is why I'm wondering why other companies are trying it. It isn't like people aren't completely against having charged content but to release it in that form shortly after launch doesn't seem to bode well. Especially if it's rather lacking in what the content contains.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I would ask those of you that have played more games than I, this. Have any P2P games come out and asked for the subscriber to pay for some limited content or heck whatever content, within 5 months of going live?
I believe EQ2 did with their adventure packs. If it wasn't within five months it was darn close to something like that.
The concept failed miserably too which is why I'm wondering why other companies are trying it. It isn't like people aren't completely against having charged content but to release it in that form shortly after launch doesn't seem to bode well. Especially if it's rather lacking in what the content contains.
Yes their timing and PR dept. seem to be ineffectual and lacking.
Also, note that expansion costs are effected by supply and demand, as well as distributors being able to set the price of the product. This means there's SOME sort of competition.
Compare with selling it online only through the company, and you'll see the prices raise or be stable, essentially making it a monopoly on the product itself. Which is NEVER a good thing.
i would just look at the zone for size, quality and content and how much it will cost me. If it seems worhty of the cost they are asking for then i will buy it...if it doesnt i wont buy it.
Dont you wish everything in life was as simple as just weighing things up
Also, note that expansion costs are effected by supply and demand, as well as distributors being able to set the price of the product. This means there's SOME sort of competition. Compare with selling it online only through the company, and you'll see the prices raise or be stable, essentially making it a monopoly on the product itself. Which is NEVER a good thing.
You seem totally off-base here.
If Game A starts charging more than is reasonable for zones (or whatever else) then people will simply not buy the zone and switch to Game B.
Unless a game offers something incredibly different from existing games, it's still competing with other games. Different pricing schemes aren't going to change that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Buying content is acceptable under certain circumstances, if a game has a full game experience from it's beginning level to it's end level (works differently in a non-level game) and it's content is not "full of holes" then you'd only reasonably be expecting to buy content in a pay to play game for expansions, & those expansions would be needing to offer value for money, EverQuest, as an example already given, offered new spells & combat abilities, often new gaming systems that expanded the experience within the game beyond just the combat & exploration, then often added a whole ton of content in the form of zones, storyline, lore, quests, raids, new npcs, new trading recipes & a whole other bunch of stuff like classes, races, level cap raises, or even a complete new set of level 1-final zones, giving xtra content for everyone.
What CO is doing is having a game with considerable holes in it's content that it is releasing an expansion to fill, then expecting it's customers to pay for them not having released a comprehensive game in the first place, which is quite heinous & the customers are voicing their disgust, this doesn't mean that buying zones is bad, just that how Cryptic have approached it is completely unacceptable in it's execution.
Perception is everything & there are established & accepted methods of delivering new content, asking your customer to pay to fill in the holes is tantamount to piss-taking.
Everyone was fine with DDO doing it a few weeks ago, has the hate-train jumped stations already?
It costs money to keep those torches burning, can't have the mob wasting time on an old target! Move Sharpen the pitchforks, add more oil to the torches and head on over to rally against the next MMO that dares offer something their particular crowd does not like.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Dungeons and Dragons has proved it can work in a F2P model. But subscription fee's and buying zones ala cryptic? No way, if you are paying the fee's every month all content should be available to you. I can understand character transfers. name changes or server moves costing extra money but to hold back on game content is unbelivable. I fear this is setting a precident and it should be questioned and spoke out against. Was really enjoying STO at beta but won't be subbing to the game now becouse of this. Guess voting with my wallet is all I can do right now.
It costs money to keep those torches burning, can't have the mob wasting time on an old target! Move Sharpen the pitchforks, add more oil to the torches and head on over to rally against the next MMO that dares offer something their particular crowd does not like.
"How dare consumers complain publicly about a product / company that they disagree with?! They should just take all the rape and ENJOY it."
It costs money to keep those torches burning, can't have the mob wasting time on an old target! Move Sharpen the pitchforks, add more oil to the torches and head on over to rally against the next MMO that dares offer something their particular crowd does not like.
"How dare consumers complain publicly about a product / company that they disagree with?! They should just take all the rape and ENJOY it."
When you start to equate a potential and optional business model for an entertainment product/service with telling customers to get raped and enjoy it, then maybe... just maybe... you've got to a bit of an extreme and are getting too personal about the issue to discuss it rationally.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I feel like I'm not going to tolerate companies who try to nickle and dime me to death. It's the same reason I don't play the supposedly free to play games. If you can't make a quality product at a fair price you can look elsewhere for income.
I wish more people would speak with their dollars, but the fact of the matter is that most consumers would rather pay what they feel is an unfair amount for their entertainment than not have the entertainment at all or, dare I say, spend a moment to actually look for the entertainment elsewhere.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
So somehow paying 50 dollars for a box and 15 dollars a month, AS WELL AS 50 bucks for an expansion does NOT count as "buying zones?" Yeh, that makes sense. Just because the OP seems to think that paying for all that doesn't count does not mean that it doesn't. I love how many F2P enemies seem to think that paying for extra lands, character slots or new quests do not count as the same thing as buying something out of a cash shop. There is absolutely no difference, save for packaging. Beau
This
This too. Just because $15 is the status quo for subscription based games doesn't mean it's right. If you're paying $15/mo, that is enough to cover the creation of new content. This is why I respected Turbine the most when they'd continuously release expansion pack sized content updates without charging extra for it. It was all included in the subscription fees as it should be.
So I agree with the above, that there's no difference in charging a large sum of money for an expansion pack and charging small sums of money for new zones.
Comments
Selling zones is perfectly acceptable.
Players are going to consider the total amount of money they're paying vs. the quality and quantity of content they're getting -- if a bad game is trying to sell more zones on top of the "box cost" and sub fee, players aren't going to accept that.
But it has nothing to do with selling zones being a bad thing, and everything to do with the game not offering sufficient value-per-cost.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Segregating playerbase based on external-to-gameplay mechanics I find largely un-immersive. We're in this interactive world together, and denying access to some is akin to denying opportunity.
I guess this is why I'm a fan of P2P models. Everyone is on equal footing, and you make what you can of it. The results aren't skewed by imbalanced opportunity.
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 think this is good way to fund the game but I would like to see the first zone priced lower. Now we pay 40-60€ from it.
I will start with... your ability to quote could be greatly improved. I will fix this, so that it can be followed.
Ummm...I do what most people do...type in the quotes. =P
So, you are saying that it isn't the practice, but the price. If they were to charge less, it would be ok.
You have referenced several F2P games (supporting MY statement, not yours) one P2P that has a small fee (I guessing you are going with, if it is cheap, it doesn't count)and two that even you don't know about. So, yes you could continue... but you would just point out that by definition P2P charges for stuff... and that stuff is content.
How do I not know what I'm talking about? Perpetuum I simply meant I don't know if it'll charge an activation fee. There will be a low monthly fee. Ryzom doesn't cost anything but monthly, and has the damn Ryzom Ring free with it. Face of Mankind is freemium and doesn't cost anything beyond the monthly fee and the premium part is mainly aesthetics or if you want a leadership position, no cash shop. LOVE has infinite amounts of planned content that won't cost anything but your monthly fee. EvE doesn't cost anything but a monthly fee and a $5 activation fee, no cash shop, no extra paid content. Wurm's free part is just an unlimited free trial and they don't charge anything beyond a monthly fee.
You have also tried to argue that their fees are 'justified' in some way, and as such should not be considered as fees.
None of this matters. It is a commercial deal. Quid pro quo. This goes back a few thousand years... but I am guessing that you will argue what this doesnt apply either, because it is only a 'little money'. What, 30 pieces of silver?
I'm not justifying anything. Have you ever run a server? It costs. A lot. If they're not going to charge a box fee or have a cash shop and the game is good, then they damn well deserve to be making a profit off of a monthly fee.
I suppose next you're going to be pissed because you have to buy a DVD player and pay for DVDs which is essentially "paying for content." Get a life.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Nope, I should pay a monthly fee and a box fee and then get ALL the content. Period. There should be no "new zones" that I have to pay for AFTER buying the game AND paying $15 a month for the "privilege" of playing the game.
I don't really get involved in these debates, though. I vote with my wallet, like all consumers should. If a game starts nickel-and-dime-ing me to death, I quit paying for it and if I can, dispute the charges with my credit card company. You can often get a refund by disputing charges and in America there is absolutely *no* retaliation for disputing a charge, or any possible effect it can have on your credit score. From personal knowledge I can say with absolute certainty that the number of times you dispute charges or IF you have ever disputed a charge is NOT part of the credit-score formula; in the US among the three main credit-scoring companies. (Equifax, Trans Union & Experian.)
You don't even need to provide a *reason* for disputing a charge other than "service provider didn't deliver what I thought they would deliver" - period. Enough people start doing this and the gaming companies will take note and listen. They pay for these chargebacks; the consumer does NOT.
Nothing makes me more frustrated and sad than consumers not exercising their rights. You DO realize that as consumers, we pretty much decide what quality we're willing to deal with and pay for - right?
I don't mind buying an expansion if it's loaded with lots of other features that are going to upgrade the game. But buying zones only is silly.
I will not play "free to play" games. It ruins my gaming experience to be nickeled and dimed during the game, and to reduce content to dollars.
However, I have absolutely no problem with buying zones.
It's no different than buying an expansion pak in a P2P game.
As long as I can't buy my way through the game, it's fine. When I can pay money to get gear, or to get xp faster, then for me the game sucks.
If it is a large zone and VERY high quality content then I might not mind paying $2 for a new zone.
I really wonder how many zones WoW Classic has and how much that breaks down in price if you were to go by how much it cost when it fist came out.
But a few bucks a zone with outstanding content and happens to be huge, sure why not. This is also assuming that I didn't pay for a full priced $50 box to start. This might be a great strategy to use for a company that is small and trying to push out new zones every month or so in addition to the ones it could manage to produce for release. So if it could only release 5 zones and then offered the Retail Box for only $15 and maybe a $5-$10 a month charge do to it being unfinnished I wouldn't mind.
At least this way then can make money to keep them going and pay their bills while making new content with their system.
Do not try to be a great gamer, just be a gamer. Cause, I don't care how good you are anyway.
There is a game that uses this model, although I forgot the name.
Instead of buying a box, you buy zones. Once you purchase a zone, you can play in that zone forever. Well, as long as the game stays active.
If i am paying 50$ for the game and then 15$/month and then 50$ for each expansion, i would expect to have everything available to me whenever i want.
example: LOTRO: 50$ (ok i got a deal and got it for 10) and then 15$/month i get to go and play everything that is available in that game. i get to play the new zones when i start and i get to play the end zones whenever i get there, no matter how long it takes.
now if the client is free and i am not paying 15$/month. well i can expect to play a limited part of the game, like a demo of some sort. or a trial. now if i like the trial/demo i can decide to buy the game. DDO is an awesome model, and its probably the only F2P game i have ever put money into. I got to play the beginer quests and some of the more challenging and i really liked them, i liked how the "trial/demo" played and i wanted more. since i am not paying 15$ a month nor the client. i can play all i want how long i want until i reach a certain checkpoint where if i want to keep going i have to buy "dungeon packs" which include zones quests and dungeons. it cost me 5-10$ for a specific range.
so i paid 0 for the game, 0 per month and i get to play as fast or as casual as i want. whenever i reach a certain checkpoint, say it takes me 3 months, instead of paying 50+15+15+15 (95), i only paid 10. for the same 3 months.
and honestly i would be fine with MMOs that you have to pay for the box but not have a subscription fee and you would have to pay for zones or lvl ups. for example. box gets you all zones lvl 1 to 30. to get from 31 to 60 you need to buy it for say 10$ from 60-90 cost 20$. there would be multiple lvl 60-90 zones so each would cost 20$. (but once you buy them they are available for ever on that account for any character you make
you could buy all the zones for the same price people pay for life subs
but having 15$/month AND pay per zones (not counting expansions)? i mean WTF! so now its Pay to play, Pay to level, pay to zone, pay for clothes. so you end up paying 60-100$/month on a video game... no thanks.
I think some are misunderstanding the type of "zone" purchase cryptic is trying to sell. It is a zone that is alleged to be the size of monster island. I guess that is an ok size for champions but is a very very small sized zone compared in any way to wow. also wow and other companies has other things other than the extra real estate and the quests that come with it. They have raised level caps, new mounts, new races, new class/powers, more raid content and so on. This zone is mid lvl content that doesnt solve the content gap the game suffers for lvl 33-37.
For them to charge whatever fee that doesnt add anything that the majority of the games community wants is nothing but a money grab. It is likely content that was to buggy and should have been included in the initial release of the game.
I would ask those of you that have played more games than I, this. Have any P2P games come out and asked for the subscriber to pay for some limited content or heck whatever content, within 5 months of going live?
I believe EQ2 did with their adventure packs. If it wasn't within five months it was darn close to something like that.
The concept failed miserably too which is why I'm wondering why other companies are trying it. It isn't like people aren't completely against having charged content but to release it in that form shortly after launch doesn't seem to bode well. Especially if it's rather lacking in what the content contains.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I believe EQ2 did with their adventure packs. If it wasn't within five months it was darn close to something like that.
The concept failed miserably too which is why I'm wondering why other companies are trying it. It isn't like people aren't completely against having charged content but to release it in that form shortly after launch doesn't seem to bode well. Especially if it's rather lacking in what the content contains.
Yes their timing and PR dept. seem to be ineffectual and lacking.
These MMORPGs are turning out to be nothing more than a way for greedy people to scam the punters out of as much money as humanly possible.
Why do we even have to pay for the game when most MMORPGs are downloaded for free?
Yes those games have a cash shop I know but then remove the cash shop and add a monthly fee instead.
Why do we have to pay for the client when we pay money each month to be able to play the game?
I will not have both a monthly fee AND a cash shop in my game.
I will just not spend any money on it.
Charging for extra content that should have been in the game from the start is just plain greedy.
Adding a dungeon (instanced zone) or adding a single non-instanced zone and charging for it is just plain greedy.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Also, note that expansion costs are effected by supply and demand, as well as distributors being able to set the price of the product. This means there's SOME sort of competition.
Compare with selling it online only through the company, and you'll see the prices raise or be stable, essentially making it a monopoly on the product itself. Which is NEVER a good thing.
Simple!
i would just look at the zone for size, quality and content and how much it will cost me. If it seems worhty of the cost they are asking for then i will buy it...if it doesnt i wont buy it.
Dont you wish everything in life was as simple as just weighing things up
You seem totally off-base here.
If Game A starts charging more than is reasonable for zones (or whatever else) then people will simply not buy the zone and switch to Game B.
Unless a game offers something incredibly different from existing games, it's still competing with other games. Different pricing schemes aren't going to change that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Buying content is acceptable under certain circumstances, if a game has a full game experience from it's beginning level to it's end level (works differently in a non-level game) and it's content is not "full of holes" then you'd only reasonably be expecting to buy content in a pay to play game for expansions, & those expansions would be needing to offer value for money, EverQuest, as an example already given, offered new spells & combat abilities, often new gaming systems that expanded the experience within the game beyond just the combat & exploration, then often added a whole ton of content in the form of zones, storyline, lore, quests, raids, new npcs, new trading recipes & a whole other bunch of stuff like classes, races, level cap raises, or even a complete new set of level 1-final zones, giving xtra content for everyone.
What CO is doing is having a game with considerable holes in it's content that it is releasing an expansion to fill, then expecting it's customers to pay for them not having released a comprehensive game in the first place, which is quite heinous & the customers are voicing their disgust, this doesn't mean that buying zones is bad, just that how Cryptic have approached it is completely unacceptable in it's execution.
Perception is everything & there are established & accepted methods of delivering new content, asking your customer to pay to fill in the holes is tantamount to piss-taking.
It costs money to keep those torches burning, can't have the mob wasting time on an old target! Move Sharpen the pitchforks, add more oil to the torches and head on over to rally against the next MMO that dares offer something their particular crowd does not like.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If the game is F2p but has me buying zones I have no issue.
They have to pay the bills somehow.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Dungeons and Dragons has proved it can work in a F2P model. But subscription fee's and buying zones ala cryptic? No way, if you are paying the fee's every month all content should be available to you. I can understand character transfers. name changes or server moves costing extra money but to hold back on game content is unbelivable. I fear this is setting a precident and it should be questioned and spoke out against. Was really enjoying STO at beta but won't be subbing to the game now becouse of this. Guess voting with my wallet is all I can do right now.
"How dare consumers complain publicly about a product / company that they disagree with?! They should just take all the rape and ENJOY it."
"How dare consumers complain publicly about a product / company that they disagree with?! They should just take all the rape and ENJOY it."
When you start to equate a potential and optional business model for an entertainment product/service with telling customers to get raped and enjoy it, then maybe... just maybe... you've got to a bit of an extreme and are getting too personal about the issue to discuss it rationally.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I wish more people would speak with their dollars, but the fact of the matter is that most consumers would rather pay what they feel is an unfair amount for their entertainment than not have the entertainment at all or, dare I say, spend a moment to actually look for the entertainment elsewhere.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This
This too. Just because $15 is the status quo for subscription based games doesn't mean it's right. If you're paying $15/mo, that is enough to cover the creation of new content. This is why I respected Turbine the most when they'd continuously release expansion pack sized content updates without charging extra for it. It was all included in the subscription fees as it should be.
So I agree with the above, that there's no difference in charging a large sum of money for an expansion pack and charging small sums of money for new zones.