I will NEVER subscribe to a Pay2Play game that has a cash shop.
And you have voted with your wallet. that's a good thing.
Enough people vote with their wallet and then game company's will decide that they are driving away more players than they are attracting. Of course it might mean that your pickings are slim if the future of these games have cash shops. But that's ok because at least you know that you are paying for something you believe in.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
To all the people moaning about the mounts being paid for, what if you could buy the mounts for $25 but it was also a 0.1% drop from a random boss (and that boss changed every hour).. would that dry your eyes? Cus its now obtainable in game without paying the $25.
If peeps wanna shell out $25 for a vanity item let'em, save your rage and QQ for when/if they can buy gear and weapons.
I don't believe I ever said anything about "kindness of their hearts". Nor was it implied. I get that corporatoins are about making money.
And remember... you work for IBM. You accept their paycheck, you accept their benefits and presumably you will be there for a good long while? I know my uncle who worked for IBM was a lifer though things could have changed.
So point is, if people are going to start dissing large corporations in any real manner I sort of feel that they need to assess how those corporatioins fit into their lives. Otherwise you are biting the hand that feeds you. We all know that large corporations exist to make money for shareholders. But we are those shareholders. And in some cases, employees. So I don't go dissing large corporations but I do diss their actions when they do things that are not what I consider ethically correct. equating buying from gold sellers to buying from the game company seems to be off the mark.
As far as a game being fair and sporting you are correct but only in context.
It's sony's game. or in other cases blizzard's game, turbine's game, etc. If they deem that they want to add purchasable content that they feel doesn't imbalance game play then it's their game to change.
It's then consumer's decision whether or not partake if he/she sees that it is contrary to their ideas of what the game should be.
I realize some people will claim that buying anything in game goes against the idea of the game but I certainly don't agree.
Then that really doesn't affect the other players. I'll just look a bit pauncy.
I equate these items to the same thing. They really don't affect us in a direct way unless we want to just "be that guy". If I buy good looking cosmetic armor, other than your sensibiliities it doesn't alter game play at all exept it makes the game more enjoyable for me. Same with this mount. One can get better mounts in game if one wants to.
IBM has changed a lot, much of their work is contracted out to other firms that pay their employers less and have few of the benefits than I get. It may go against my ideals of fairness and so on, but in these hard times I can’t afford to be choosy about who I work for. I may be a hypocrite but at least I’m not a poor one.
However, I will continue to argue that when your success in a game becomes largely dependent on your bank balance, it’s no longer a balanced or fair game (although for some classes it was never balanced or fair). Although SOE are selling items that are on the whole only cosmetic, my suspicion is that this is merely a short step towards selling other items that will effect gameplay more directly (arguably they already have with pots).
I’m well aware that the game belongs to Sony, and that I’m only a guest or a customer that has to pay for the privilege of playing their game. However, after paying for the game, then a monthly subscription and for the expansion pacts you can understand why I should feel a little affronted when I log on to find an advert for a mount that’s only available to buy along with other items such as a race change potion. But as you said, it is my choice whether to continue to pay for the game and right now I’m torn between muttering moaning away but continue to play the game that I do largely enjoy or cancelling my sub and hoping that the game dies. There are after all, other games.
well the example you taking up is more about being able to buy cosmetic items in general, most in-game items that some players are not accepting is for the sake of argument keeping to Monopoly is that you can buy a property/money/buildings at any time for real life money, witch is enchanting your own monopoly game but hindering others, then its not about the game itself but instead of how much RL cash you can afford to spend on the game to keep ahead.
but yea for the companies its usally an increase of cash for them and thats whats importants for a company. but still there is a conflict of intrests here.
But aren't we talking about cosmetic items? I don't know of any player who has ever championed the idea of buying higher end gear or things that make him/her more powerufl? Well, perhaps with the exception of f2p games but I've never actually seen one that offers gear. I'm sure some must.
But you know what? Maybe there are players who would just assume buy the most "uber" gear and just have at it. However, I've certainly never seen someone offer that counter-point on this forum.
As far as a conflict of interest, that is a tough one.
What is the conflict?
The company sees a market and they fill it. The players are part of that market and they benefit from the company's offerings.
If the company doesn't offer what some would consider good value for money then people won't buy.
Even if the company was to go overboard (my opinion) and offer high end gear for cash, there still isn't a conflict because if people purchase that gear then they are part of the demographic for the game. It does however alienate or drive away players who aren't part of that demographic.
Look, we all know that games have bots and gold sellers. Why? Because people are buying!
So even in your favorite game without a cash shop, if it is popular there is a secondary market because players are looking for that type of stuff.
So in the end, most games have a sort of cash shop. It just depends on whether it is sanctioned by the game company and presumably with the idea that it fits in with the concept of the game design or if it's some company trying to make money off of another company's effort.
no, me for exapmle dont want to buy items from a in-game shop that enhances my in-game ability, im actually being put off games that has it. and im not alone hence the intrest conflict. as far as the "uber"-gear, yes i want it but i want to earn it, not buy it for for RL money nor do i want the same gear being able to be bought for RL cash or the whole prossess of getting it and then having the gear as proof that i did it goes to waste.
and yes there is a lot of ppl out there buying items, not everyone does though and im not saying there isnt a market for it either, I for one dosent like it at all.
so in the end not every game will have in-game shops, since there are some of us that dosent want it there is a market for games without a in-game shop so some games will not have one.
Mounts are something that are typically created as part of the base game and monthly subscription content updates.
Navigation systems are not a standard part of a cars features and thus not an expected to be included in the base car purchase.
An analogy is fine as long as it doesn't misrepresent that true aspects of what is being discussed.
It stupifies me to hear people defend companies short selling customers as if everyone should just shut up and accept it.
And mounts are still in the games that have these. As a matter of fact, the REGULAR in game earned mounts are far BETTER than the purchased one.
And I never said anyone should shut up and accept it. To me it sounds more like YOU are saying that people that don't have an issue with it should shut up and let the people that want to complain do so without having to hear the other side of the argument.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but earlier I was speaking in general terms and not directly at you or your views. My mistake if that didn't come across.
As for the stats of the mount it really doesn't matter, outside of promises that no cash shop items would have in game enhancements, etc. [again see comments of grooming the playerbase, because now the new barrier is stats on cash items are ok as long as they are not the best items in the game?]
Anyhow it doesn't change much, because with or without stats it is a net loss to players. Developer time that was previously allocated to creating in game content has been diverted to removing content from that cycle and only offering it at an additional fee [not to mention all the other time spent creating and upkeeping the systems to support cash transactions].
In fact I can't think of a single subscription mmo that has added a cash shop and seen the supposed increase in more content, etc. EQ2 for example scaled back the dev cycles a while back citing quality issues and then shortly after that released station cash. It isn't a mystery where the development time for that came from is it? The loss may not be tangible like having a raid item removed from a dungeon, but it is a loss just that same. I'm sure most players would rather get 100% of a game or rather a company fix the problems their latest expansion caused than waste time on more and more cash shop items, just for example.
The net result is that people are defending getting less for their money is very strange to me. Almost everyone who has "no problem" with this has made such comments in a conditional manner. Such as pointing out that such and such item isn't more powerful than something else in game or they are just vanity items, so it isn't a problem or nothing to be concerned about... YET. This says that there is the potential for cash shops to cross their personal boundries and as long as it does they don't care about those whos boundries have been crossed.
In essence all we are talking about here is differences in tolerance levels between people for what items are offered in the cash shops.
Lastly I'm not telling anyone to shut up at all and I'm not sure where you get that from. I'm just speaking my mind like everyone else. I just think more people should voice concerns BEFORE their personal tolerance levels are crossed.
I have no issue with people buyging goods in the game, its all about time vs money trade off. Some people have nothing but time, others have little free time, but lots of money.
I have no issue with people buyging goods in the game, its all about time vs money trade off. Some people have nothing but time, others have little free time, but lots of money.
To me its like rested XP.
Ive never found this argument to be valid. If one doesnt have time to play an MMO maybe they should find something to fill what spare time they do have. But no, they want to game to allow them to spend money on advancement instead of actually playing the game. The sad part is, this is just the mentality that has brought cash shops to P2P games. This and the influx of "new players" that need the help.
However, I will continue to argue that when your success in a game becomes largely dependent on your bank balance, it’s no longer a balanced or fair game (although for some classes it was never balanced or fair). Although SOE are selling items that are on the whole only cosmetic, my suspicion is that this is merely a short step towards selling other items that will effect gameplay more directly (arguably they already have with pots).
I’m well aware that the game belongs to Sony, and that I’m only a guest or a customer that has to pay for the privilege of playing their game. However, after paying for the game, then a monthly subscription and for the expansion pacts you can understand why I should feel a little affronted when I log on to find an advert for a mount that’s only available to buy along with other items such as a race change potion. But as you said, it is my choice whether to continue to pay for the game and right now I’m torn between muttering moaning away but continue to play the game that I do largely enjoy or cancelling my sub and hoping that the game dies. There are after all, other games.
I would still argue that it's not about success tied to a wallet (edit: in this case).
In the case of this example, EQ 2, the things that do grant success are the xp pots. I would argue that there shouldn't be xp pots because that adds to the success you are talking about.
But this mount and the other items one can purchase in their shop that are cosmetic don't add to any measurable success in game terms. Especially if one can get a mount and a better mount by just playing the game. I realize that there is this reaction to tie this and the wow mount to some sort of slippery slope that everyone is expecting game companies to make but I don't really believe they will do this.
what they might do is start nickel and diming content. but I highly doubt one is going to be able to check some wow or eq cash shop and see the same weapoins one can get in their top raids. It just won't do because it dilutes their brand.
As far as the gentleman who feels that it is a conflict of interest, given your example, it isn't.
Every company knows that their products are going to appeal to some demographic. It is in their interest to target certain demographics based upon their internal criteria.
So even though you and others might not want to play their game because of cash shops that isn't an immediate concern or conflict because there are people who not only will play their games but will use their cash shop.
Of course every busines would like to get as many customers from as broad a base as possible but they also know that this is not always the case. So where is the conflict? They have targeted a group that is willing to play their game and is willing to buy a horse or cat steed for 25 dollars. There is no confict in their eyes.
Now, if they lost a huge percentage of their subscriptions then sure, they might reconsider. But as I don't see huge amounts of people leaving in droves and news items talking about their worry as to whether they will stay afloat I think it's safe to say they are comfortable with their decisions.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Playing devils advocate here. There are people who are against RMT and for the most part people understand the perceived ethical quandary. So we have loyal players who pay their Station Access or Standard Account monthly, they get upset and leave the game because RMT is introduced, how does this help the game?
People who utilize RMT should be making your lives a little easier. They are potentially generating a lot more cash per transaction than standard accounts. Sure its perceived as taboo for 'loyal' players, but it pays SOE's bills. Its not a sucker punch on SOE's part and may even keep the lights on so the game can continue to evolve.
You'll know who these people are because they'll be riding around on the their store bought mounts, but you'll not be able to say anything to them because you left the game. To me that's biting your nose to spite your face.
The Old Timers Guild Laid back, not so serious, no drama. All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
Playing devils advocate here. There are people who are against RMT and for the most part people understand the perceived ethical quandary. So we have loyal players who pay their Station Access or Standard Account monthly, they get upset and leave the game because RMT is introduced, how does this help the game?
People who utilize RMT should be making your lives a little easier. They are potentially generating a lot more cash per transaction than standard accounts. Sure its perceived as taboo for 'loyal' players, but it pays SOE's bills. Its not a sucker punch on SOE's part and may even keep the lights on so the game can continue to evolve.
You'll know who these people are because they'll be riding around on the their store bought mounts, but you'll not be able to say anything to them because you left the game. To me that's biting your nose to spite your face.
I thought the subscription fees were to pay the bills and to fund updates and xpacs? I have no idea how much money EQ2 generates for SOE but if it is to the point it needs RMT to keep the lights on the game is finished anyway. Sub fees have been at $15 a month for a long time and I realize the need to keep up with the cost of living / inflation and I would be more comfortable paying a bit more in monthly sub fees than playing a P2P with RMT but thats just me. However, I do not believe its about keeping the game running I think its about greed, just like it is with Blizzard and they surely have no need for RMT to maintain WOW.
Well its easy: smaller playerbase -> less dumb people -> less people willing to buy this capitalistic crap.
Its a shame that companies are trying to invent F2P "features" in P2P games hope they'll go downhill soon.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Well everyone made good points here. Paying for a special mount or any special item to play in a game that you pay a monthly fee for is in itself rediculous. Fun should always be the focus not more fees. If anyone does not think that this is vainity you are truly blind. It is a shame that people actually feed these business practices buy actually buying the items. Oh well. Things can get worse......
Comments
true, and thats about the only thing we can do about it. unless we want to start a game-company that makes sub-based game without in-game shop.
And you have voted with your wallet. that's a good thing.
Enough people vote with their wallet and then game company's will decide that they are driving away more players than they are attracting. Of course it might mean that your pickings are slim if the future of these games have cash shops. But that's ok because at least you know that you are paying for something you believe in.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
To all the people moaning about the mounts being paid for, what if you could buy the mounts for $25 but it was also a 0.1% drop from a random boss (and that boss changed every hour).. would that dry your eyes? Cus its now obtainable in game without paying the $25.
If peeps wanna shell out $25 for a vanity item let'em, save your rage and QQ for when/if they can buy gear and weapons.
IBM has changed a lot, much of their work is contracted out to other firms that pay their employers less and have few of the benefits than I get. It may go against my ideals of fairness and so on, but in these hard times I can’t afford to be choosy about who I work for. I may be a hypocrite but at least I’m not a poor one.
However, I will continue to argue that when your success in a game becomes largely dependent on your bank balance, it’s no longer a balanced or fair game (although for some classes it was never balanced or fair). Although SOE are selling items that are on the whole only cosmetic, my suspicion is that this is merely a short step towards selling other items that will effect gameplay more directly (arguably they already have with pots).
I’m well aware that the game belongs to Sony, and that I’m only a guest or a customer that has to pay for the privilege of playing their game. However, after paying for the game, then a monthly subscription and for the expansion pacts you can understand why I should feel a little affronted when I log on to find an advert for a mount that’s only available to buy along with other items such as a race change potion. But as you said, it is my choice whether to continue to pay for the game and right now I’m torn between muttering moaning away but continue to play the game that I do largely enjoy or cancelling my sub and hoping that the game dies. There are after all, other games.
no, me for exapmle dont want to buy items from a in-game shop that enhances my in-game ability, im actually being put off games that has it. and im not alone hence the intrest conflict. as far as the "uber"-gear, yes i want it but i want to earn it, not buy it for for RL money nor do i want the same gear being able to be bought for RL cash or the whole prossess of getting it and then having the gear as proof that i did it goes to waste.
and yes there is a lot of ppl out there buying items, not everyone does though and im not saying there isnt a market for it either, I for one dosent like it at all.
so in the end not every game will have in-game shops, since there are some of us that dosent want it there is a market for games without a in-game shop so some games will not have one.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but earlier I was speaking in general terms and not directly at you or your views. My mistake if that didn't come across.
As for the stats of the mount it really doesn't matter, outside of promises that no cash shop items would have in game enhancements, etc. [again see comments of grooming the playerbase, because now the new barrier is stats on cash items are ok as long as they are not the best items in the game?]
Anyhow it doesn't change much, because with or without stats it is a net loss to players. Developer time that was previously allocated to creating in game content has been diverted to removing content from that cycle and only offering it at an additional fee [not to mention all the other time spent creating and upkeeping the systems to support cash transactions].
In fact I can't think of a single subscription mmo that has added a cash shop and seen the supposed increase in more content, etc. EQ2 for example scaled back the dev cycles a while back citing quality issues and then shortly after that released station cash. It isn't a mystery where the development time for that came from is it? The loss may not be tangible like having a raid item removed from a dungeon, but it is a loss just that same. I'm sure most players would rather get 100% of a game or rather a company fix the problems their latest expansion caused than waste time on more and more cash shop items, just for example.
The net result is that people are defending getting less for their money is very strange to me. Almost everyone who has "no problem" with this has made such comments in a conditional manner. Such as pointing out that such and such item isn't more powerful than something else in game or they are just vanity items, so it isn't a problem or nothing to be concerned about... YET. This says that there is the potential for cash shops to cross their personal boundries and as long as it does they don't care about those whos boundries have been crossed.
In essence all we are talking about here is differences in tolerance levels between people for what items are offered in the cash shops.
Lastly I'm not telling anyone to shut up at all and I'm not sure where you get that from. I'm just speaking my mind like everyone else. I just think more people should voice concerns BEFORE their personal tolerance levels are crossed.
I have no issue with people buyging goods in the game, its all about time vs money trade off. Some people have nothing but time, others have little free time, but lots of money.
To me its like rested XP.
Ive never found this argument to be valid. If one doesnt have time to play an MMO maybe they should find something to fill what spare time they do have. But no, they want to game to allow them to spend money on advancement instead of actually playing the game. The sad part is, this is just the mentality that has brought cash shops to P2P games. This and the influx of "new players" that need the help.
I would still argue that it's not about success tied to a wallet (edit: in this case).
In the case of this example, EQ 2, the things that do grant success are the xp pots. I would argue that there shouldn't be xp pots because that adds to the success you are talking about.
But this mount and the other items one can purchase in their shop that are cosmetic don't add to any measurable success in game terms. Especially if one can get a mount and a better mount by just playing the game. I realize that there is this reaction to tie this and the wow mount to some sort of slippery slope that everyone is expecting game companies to make but I don't really believe they will do this.
what they might do is start nickel and diming content. but I highly doubt one is going to be able to check some wow or eq cash shop and see the same weapoins one can get in their top raids. It just won't do because it dilutes their brand.
As far as the gentleman who feels that it is a conflict of interest, given your example, it isn't.
Every company knows that their products are going to appeal to some demographic. It is in their interest to target certain demographics based upon their internal criteria.
So even though you and others might not want to play their game because of cash shops that isn't an immediate concern or conflict because there are people who not only will play their games but will use their cash shop.
Of course every busines would like to get as many customers from as broad a base as possible but they also know that this is not always the case. So where is the conflict? They have targeted a group that is willing to play their game and is willing to buy a horse or cat steed for 25 dollars. There is no confict in their eyes.
Now, if they lost a huge percentage of their subscriptions then sure, they might reconsider. But as I don't see huge amounts of people leaving in droves and news items talking about their worry as to whether they will stay afloat I think it's safe to say they are comfortable with their decisions.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
WoW got away with it so they thought they would give it a go, i am not really that fussed about it.
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
Playing devils advocate here. There are people who are against RMT and for the most part people understand the perceived ethical quandary. So we have loyal players who pay their Station Access or Standard Account monthly, they get upset and leave the game because RMT is introduced, how does this help the game?
People who utilize RMT should be making your lives a little easier. They are potentially generating a lot more cash per transaction than standard accounts. Sure its perceived as taboo for 'loyal' players, but it pays SOE's bills. Its not a sucker punch on SOE's part and may even keep the lights on so the game can continue to evolve.
You'll know who these people are because they'll be riding around on the their store bought mounts, but you'll not be able to say anything to them because you left the game. To me that's biting your nose to spite your face.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
I thought the subscription fees were to pay the bills and to fund updates and xpacs? I have no idea how much money EQ2 generates for SOE but if it is to the point it needs RMT to keep the lights on the game is finished anyway. Sub fees have been at $15 a month for a long time and I realize the need to keep up with the cost of living / inflation and I would be more comfortable paying a bit more in monthly sub fees than playing a P2P with RMT but thats just me. However, I do not believe its about keeping the game running I think its about greed, just like it is with Blizzard and they surely have no need for RMT to maintain WOW.
Well its easy: smaller playerbase -> less dumb people -> less people willing to buy this capitalistic crap.
Its a shame that companies are trying to invent F2P "features" in P2P games hope they'll go downhill soon.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
What a shame... if the terrible performance wasn't bad enough to put it on my ban list, these kinds of decisions surely are.
"I'm not cheap I'm incredibly subconsciously financially optimized"
"The worst part of censorship is ------------------"
Well everyone made good points here. Paying for a special mount or any special item to play in a game that you pay a monthly fee for is in itself rediculous. Fun should always be the focus not more fees. If anyone does not think that this is vainity you are truly blind. It is a shame that people actually feed these business practices buy actually buying the items. Oh well. Things can get worse......