It's been stated explicitely by multiple Sigil and Microsoft employees involved with Vanguard, that Vanguard will not be selling in game goods for real world money. Period.
Statement on the Vanguard forums:
oh more Microsoft F.U.D.!
Well ask and you shall receive! I've stated it on the boards before and I will state it again. Microsoft has no plans to sell currency or items in Vanguard. We are on the same page with Sigil in this regard.
Microtransactions are actually a very cool idea for games w/o subscriptions. In these games developers often like to make ongoing content but without a monthly fee there is no way to fund that content. Microtransactions make it possible to provide new levels quickly and efficiently. The content is paid for by the small transactions and it allows them to release content more quickly than waiting for enough for a complete expansion. Because there's very little(or no) persistence in these games there is no impact to a virtual economy. The developer and publisher gets paid and the end user gets new content at a low price. Everybody wins.
I know there is a lot of anxiety about Microsoft on the boards. I will make it very clear that while we have a lot of different technologies to choose from, we are only going to implement the features that make sense for Vanguard. We aren't going to do anything to compromise this game.
So relax guys.
__________________ L-Train AKA Leon Pryor Program Manager, RAT Studio Microsoft Game Studios
I think Leon Pryor explains pretty well the difference between the intended use of microtransactions and buying/selling virtual goods in MMO's (Vanguard specifically).
Brad Mcquiad (CEO of Sigil) , and Cindy Bowens (Sigil Community Relations Officer), have both stated openly they will not be having item sales in Vanguard. Other Sigil devs have commented on the fact that just because Microsoft is the publisher, they have limited control over what the independent company making Vanguard does or does not do.
Another quote, in direct response to the freaking out about this particular article (and before it, the keynote address at the GDC, which started the whole topic to begin with):
Abigale (Cindy Bowens), Sigil's Community Manager
Hey all-
Let me take a moment to clarify this. This interview was to ask me about our thoughts on this issue. So my responses were geared simply to respond to those questions.
So let's set this record straight. We have never been against the sales of in-game items if that is how the game was intended to be played. Other games may build in this type of feature or may decide to work with a secondary company and we have no issue with that. Our problem is with companies conducting this business in games where the developers to not want to allow it.
We at Sigil do not want secondary sales to be a part of Vanguard. And as Leon has posted already, Microsoft is "on the same page" with us and there is no conflict.
Abigale (Cindy Bowens), Sigil's Community Manager Hey all-
Let me take a moment to clarify this. This interview was to ask me about our thoughts on this issue. So my responses were geared simply to respond to those questions.
So let's set this record straight. We have never been against the sales of in-game items if that is how the game was intended to be played. Other games may build in this type of feature or may decide to work with a secondary company and we have no issue with that. Our problem is with companies conducting this business in games where the developers to not want to allow it.
We at Sigil do not want secondary sales to be a part of Vanguard. And as Leon has posted already, Microsoft is "on the same page" with us and there is no conflict.
I wonder if their policy changed now that SoE decided to allow off-game item trading with its new "Station Exchange". Obviously the fact that SoE took a decision like that doesn' t necessarly mean that other will follow. But considering that SoE has always been against off-line trading, this U-turn is a bit of a surprise, and probably lots of companies are re-thinking their strategies right now.
Abigale (Cindy Bowens), Sigil's Community Manager Hey all- Let me take a moment to clarify this. This interview was to ask me about our thoughts on this issue. So my responses were geared simply to respond to those questions. So let's set this record straight. We have never been against the sales of in-game items if that is how the game was intended to be played. Other games may build in this type of feature or may decide to work with a secondary company and we have no issue with that. Our problem is with companies conducting this business in games where the developers to not want to allow it. We at Sigil do not want secondary sales to be a part of Vanguard. And as Leon has posted already, Microsoft is "on the same page" with us and there is no conflict.
I wonder if their policy changed now that SoE decided to allow off-game item trading with its new "Station Exchange". Obviously the fact that SoE took a decision like that doesn' t necessarly mean that other will follow. But considering that SoE has always been against off-line trading, this U-turn is a bit of a surprise, and probably lots of companies are re-thinking their strategies right now.
Here's my official response to the concern that we'd make 'exchange servers' or something equivalent:
----
Wow, what to say. I'm still reeling a bit.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
A lot of you brought up money: that this sort of decision was based on money, and in one sense it likely was.
But, honestly, we're all in this for the money (and the fun, etc. -- how often does one do something for only 'one' reason?).
The money and fun we're looking for results from a popular game that lasts years and years. To that end we're constantly thinking about retention mechanisms -- ways to make the game stay fun and entertaining and compelling for that long. It's not easy. One thing we know is that we have to protect the long term health and balance of the game, and that a big part of that is the game's economy (especially given its item-centricity).
There are a lot of ways to do things short term in an MMOG. You could be a really popular company short term by popping into an area of the game for a few hours as your GM character and handing out high level items to newbies. I'm sure you'd be cheered and have quite a following. But it would mess up the game and cheapen other players experiences, so it would be a bad idea.
Likewise, one could sell high level items in-game for in-game plat or out of game, on eBay. The former could be quite an in-game money sink, and the latter a real-life money maker. Both, however, would hurt the overall health of the game.
My point is that facilitating the out-of-game sales of in-game items is undoubtedly a way to make money short term and also to control to some extent (or at least get a piece of) the money being made by third parties engaging in this sort of thing. This is, obviously, appealing in the short term and to someone who may not understand the importance of protecting the long term health and integrity of the game and what really makes an MMOG tick.
Vanguard is being designed as a home for the core gamer for months and years. It is also a game designed such that the integrity of the player driven economy is paramount. Because of that, out-of-game sales will harm Vanguard (they will happen to some degree, although we are determined to stop them in any way possible). Likewise, participating in shortening the lifespan of Vanguard in order make money short term is not compatible with our business plan... our vision our desire to make money long term and host a game that lasts for years, do expansions, build our company, and hopefully create other MMOGs in the future.
So it's not going to happen.
-Brad
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard will be the beacon of light the MMORPG market so desperately needs to set it straight.
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some whore he picked up in town." -Jack Handey
It's good to know that Sigil is thinking about the long term health and viability of the game. I think that prohibiting item/cash sales is the way to go. Will it happen anyway? Probably, but there's perhaps a limiting effect when it is specifically prohibited, and it lets the players who are in for the long haul know that the company cares that the items/cash they collect through meeting challenges while playing are going to retain value in game. (One should never underestimate the value of prestige items to the players who have them, and to the players who want them. Buying in-game prestige with real-world money makes that value fall, IMO.)
I wonder sometimes if other MMORPG companies understand the desire (on the part of many players) for a game with longevity. You can't do it through artificial obstacles (time sinks that have absolutely no purpose beyond taking up time), and you can't do it through giving people what they might think that they want (like the ability to skip the challenge of questing/raiding/camping for what you have, and just buy The_Mighty_Gavel_of_The_Auctioneer_01 at the convenient company-approved trading site). Longevity is a function of giving players something to achieve plus the building of communities of players (or the facilities for players to build their own communities) to achieve those things. IMO, again.
I don't necessarily object to what SOE is doing with EQ2 and the Station Exchange because they've obviously been thinking about it for a while (at least since I took their little poll at login in EQ1 about whether or not it was a good idea for them to run such a service), and they've made that choice for the future of their game. Perhaps it fits within the way the EQ2 economy was designed to work; I wouldn't know, I haven't played it. Whether they are right or wrong for that game, though, I have to say that I admire Sigil taking an early and firm stance against the practice for Vanguard:SoH.
... This is where I draw the line: __________________.
A lot of you brought up money: that this sort of decision was based on money, and in one sense it likely was.
But, honestly, we're all in this for the money (and the fun, etc. -- how often does one do something for only 'one' reason?).
The money and fun we're looking for results from a popular game that lasts years and years. To that end we're constantly thinking about retention mechanisms -- ways to make the game stay fun and entertaining and compelling for that long. It's not easy. One thing we know is that we have to protect the long term health and balance of the game, and that a big part of that is the game's economy (especially given its item-centricity).
There are a lot of ways to do things short term in an MMOG. You could be a really popular company short term by popping into an area of the game for a few hours as your GM character and handing out high level items to newbies. I'm sure you'd be cheered and have quite a following. But it would mess up the game and cheapen other players experiences, so it would be a bad idea.
Likewise, one could sell high level items in-game for in-game plat or out of game, on eBay. The former could be quite an in-game money sink, and the latter a real-life money maker. Both, however, would hurt the overall health of the game.
My point is that facilitating the out-of-game sales of in-game items is undoubtedly a way to make money short term and also to control to some extent (or at least get a piece of) the money being made by third parties engaging in this sort of thing. This is, obviously, appealing in the short term and to someone who may not understand the importance of protecting the long term health and integrity of the game and what really makes an MMOG tick.
Vanguard is being designed as a home for the core gamer for months and years. It is also a game designed such that the integrity of the player driven economy is paramount. Because of that, out-of-game sales will harm Vanguard (they will happen to some degree, although we are determined to stop them in any way possible). Likewise, participating in shortening the lifespan of Vanguard in order make money short term is not compatible with our business plan... our vision our desire to make money long term and host a game that lasts for years, do expansions, build our company, and hopefully create other MMOGs in the future.
So it's not going to happen.
-Brad
Roger that !! You can't really U-turn on a statment like that, can you?
But from my understanding, it is SoE that change it policy on the topic AFTER Vanguard make it widely known on how they stand on the issue? Or did I miss the initial press release from SoE? (I dont say SoE or Vanguard was affected by each other discussion, I am merely putting a timeline and teasing SoE for the fun of it, which I suppose will bring a few smiles).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
One thing we know is that we have to protect the long term health and balance of the game, and that a big part of that is the game's economy (especially given its item-centricity). <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> ......... This is, obviously, appealing in the short term and to someone who may not understand the importance of protecting the long term health and integrity of the game and what really makes an MMOG tick.
-Brad
You say "game" in these two statements. In reality it's just the server. You, amongst other game producers, should thank your boots that a big game company it going to try this on a few of their servers.
There is no possible way to measure the effect that this is going to have on the "farmers" and IGE's (harmfull activity) untill it is done by a game with some clout.
Sigil gets the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. IF this experiment works at eliminating harmfull activity, AND ONLY affects the economy of a few selected servers, the outrage and proclamations of doom presented on many forums will be a distant memory.
IF this experiment works at eliminating harmfull activity, AND ONLY affects the economy of a few selected servers, an Exchange system will be standard on all MMOG's, including Vanguard.
Like a seasoned politician watching his oponent make the first move, you have the benefit of rolling with popular opinion.
Other than that, I can't wait for Vanguard. Make it a good one Brad
Originally posted by loeslein IF this experiment works at eliminating harmfull activity, AND ONLY affects the economy of a few selected servers, an Exchange system will be standard on all MMOG's, including Vanguard.
Eliminating? Would you settle for a ''reducing''?
I think peoples need to be able to group with folks from others servers in order to maximised this feature(under strict rules on where and as to the conditions of such grouping with extra server on some instanced). Strict servers splitting saddly would split RL friends, which will not happen, and the rl friends will take a server they dont like and cheat...so reducing is a lot more realistic then eliminating...
Exemple: If they make a non-raiding server(I would be playing there), my raiding friends would want to group me(eh, we are friends) as much as I will want to group them...if we cant group cross servers, it is logical to assume that some raiders friends of mine will pick the non-raiding server because grouping with me is more vital to the fun they have in the game then raiding...however if we could group in some 3rd party instanced where you have extremely strict rules to make sure nobody is shafted by been on another server, then all the folks are happy and playing on their servers of preference...
PS: Specifics servers rules is what I am looking forward, I will stick to them even if there is absolutely no meeting with the others(better then shafted meetings)...however, even if a RL friend of mine is an evil buyer, raider or whatever else you may want to say about him, he is my RL friend...and althought I would pick a server I like over him, if I could group him occasionnally on a 3rd party place where neither of us can abuse the others since our games features are outclassing the others, the happier we are(even if it mean a place where we are all nerfed badly, anyway nerfed zone = challenge and fun to be with RL friends, and since I will only be there with them, I would care a lot less about how those places are designed...althought they should be grouping centered since most RL friends stuff is about groups size, not raid size). Anyway, specifics servers rules is what may make Vanguard the best game ever. I would not care if Afterlife is happy on their lame server, they dont affect me on my place of the world! And they will consider I am on a noob group limited server, which I will tell them to bug of or join an open PvP server...LOL
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Comments
It's not a contradiction at all.
It's been stated explicitely by multiple Sigil and Microsoft employees involved with Vanguard, that Vanguard will not be selling in game goods for real world money. Period.
Statement on the Vanguard forums:
I think Leon Pryor explains pretty well the difference between the intended use of microtransactions and buying/selling virtual goods in MMO's (Vanguard specifically).
Brad Mcquiad (CEO of Sigil) , and Cindy Bowens (Sigil Community Relations Officer), have both stated openly they will not be having item sales in Vanguard. Other Sigil devs have commented on the fact that just because Microsoft is the publisher, they have limited control over what the independent company making Vanguard does or does not do.
-Feyshtey-
Another quote, in direct response to the freaking out about this particular article (and before it, the keynote address at the GDC, which started the whole topic to begin with):
Abigale (Cindy Bowens), Sigil's Community Manager
-Feyshtey-
I wonder if their policy changed now that SoE decided to allow off-game item trading with its new "Station Exchange".
Obviously the fact that SoE took a decision like that doesn' t necessarly mean that other will follow.
But considering that SoE has always been against off-line trading, this U-turn is a bit of a surprise, and probably lots of companies are re-thinking their strategies right now.
I wonder if their policy changed now that SoE decided to allow off-game item trading with its new "Station Exchange".
Obviously the fact that SoE took a decision like that doesn' t necessarly mean that other will follow.
But considering that SoE has always been against off-line trading, this U-turn is a bit of a surprise, and probably lots of companies are re-thinking their strategies right now.
Here's my official response to the concern that we'd make 'exchange servers' or something equivalent:
----
Wow, what to say. I'm still reeling a bit.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
A lot of you brought up money: that this sort of decision was based on money, and in one sense it likely was.
But, honestly, we're all in this for the money (and the fun, etc. -- how often does one do something for only 'one' reason?).
The money and fun we're looking for results from a popular game that lasts years and years. To that end we're constantly thinking about retention mechanisms -- ways to make the game stay fun and entertaining and compelling for that long. It's not easy. One thing we know is that we have to protect the long term health and balance of the game, and that a big part of that is the game's economy (especially given its item-centricity).
There are a lot of ways to do things short term in an MMOG. You could be a really popular company short term by popping into an area of the game for a few hours as your GM character and handing out high level items to newbies. I'm sure you'd be cheered and have quite a following. But it would mess up the game and cheapen other players experiences, so it would be a bad idea.
Likewise, one could sell high level items in-game for in-game plat or out of game, on eBay. The former could be quite an in-game money sink, and the latter a real-life money maker. Both, however, would hurt the overall health of the game.
My point is that facilitating the out-of-game sales of in-game items is undoubtedly a way to make money short term and also to control to some extent (or at least get a piece of) the money being made by third parties engaging in this sort of thing. This is, obviously, appealing in the short term and to someone who may not understand the importance of protecting the long term health and integrity of the game and what really makes an MMOG tick.
Vanguard is being designed as a home for the core gamer for months and years. It is also a game designed such that the integrity of the player driven economy is paramount. Because of that, out-of-game sales will harm Vanguard (they will happen to some degree, although we are determined to stop them in any way possible). Likewise, participating in shortening the lifespan of Vanguard in order make money short term is not compatible with our business plan... our vision our desire to make money long term and host a game that lasts for years, do expansions, build our company, and hopefully create other MMOGs in the future.
So it's not going to happen.
-Brad
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
/cheer
Vanguard will be the beacon of light the MMORPG market so desperately needs to set it straight.
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some whore he picked up in town."
-Jack Handey
It's good to know that Sigil is thinking about the long term health and viability of the game. I think that prohibiting item/cash sales is the way to go. Will it happen anyway? Probably, but there's perhaps a limiting effect when it is specifically prohibited, and it lets the players who are in for the long haul know that the company cares that the items/cash they collect through meeting challenges while playing are going to retain value in game. (One should never underestimate the value of prestige items to the players who have them, and to the players who want them. Buying in-game prestige with real-world money makes that value fall, IMO.)
I wonder sometimes if other MMORPG companies understand the desire (on the part of many players) for a game with longevity. You can't do it through artificial obstacles (time sinks that have absolutely no purpose beyond taking up time), and you can't do it through giving people what they might think that they want (like the ability to skip the challenge of questing/raiding/camping for what you have, and just buy The_Mighty_Gavel_of_The_Auctioneer_01 at the convenient company-approved trading site). Longevity is a function of giving players something to achieve plus the building of communities of players (or the facilities for players to build their own communities) to achieve those things. IMO, again.
I don't necessarily object to what SOE is doing with EQ2 and the Station Exchange because they've obviously been thinking about it for a while (at least since I took their little poll at login in EQ1 about whether or not it was a good idea for them to run such a service), and they've made that choice for the future of their game. Perhaps it fits within the way the EQ2 economy was designed to work; I wouldn't know, I haven't played it. Whether they are right or wrong for that game, though, I have to say that I admire Sigil taking an early and firm stance against the practice for Vanguard:SoH.
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
Roger that !!
You can't really U-turn on a statment like that, can you?
Well...
Brad can correct me if I am wrong.
But from my understanding, it is SoE that change it policy on the topic AFTER Vanguard make it widely known on how they stand on the issue? Or did I miss the initial press release from SoE? (I dont say SoE or Vanguard was affected by each other discussion, I am merely putting a timeline and teasing SoE for the fun of it, which I suppose will bring a few smiles).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
You say "game" in these two statements. In reality it's just the server. You, amongst other game producers, should thank your boots that a big game company it going to try this on a few of their servers.
There is no possible way to measure the effect that this is going to have on the "farmers" and IGE's (harmfull activity) untill it is done by a game with some clout.
Sigil gets the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. IF this experiment works at eliminating harmfull activity, AND ONLY affects the economy of a few selected servers, the outrage and proclamations of doom presented on many forums will be a distant memory.
IF this experiment works at eliminating harmfull activity, AND ONLY affects the economy of a few selected servers, an Exchange system will be standard on all MMOG's, including Vanguard.
Like a seasoned politician watching his oponent make the first move, you have the benefit of rolling with popular opinion.
Other than that, I can't wait for Vanguard. Make it a good one Brad
Eliminating? Would you settle for a ''reducing''?
I think peoples need to be able to group with folks from others servers in order to maximised this feature(under strict rules on where and as to the conditions of such grouping with extra server on some instanced). Strict servers splitting saddly would split RL friends, which will not happen, and the rl friends will take a server they dont like and cheat...so reducing is a lot more realistic then eliminating...
Exemple: If they make a non-raiding server(I would be playing there), my raiding friends would want to group me(eh, we are friends) as much as I will want to group them...if we cant group cross servers, it is logical to assume that some raiders friends of mine will pick the non-raiding server because grouping with me is more vital to the fun they have in the game then raiding...however if we could group in some 3rd party instanced where you have extremely strict rules to make sure nobody is shafted by been on another server, then all the folks are happy and playing on their servers of preference...
PS: Specifics servers rules is what I am looking forward, I will stick to them even if there is absolutely no meeting with the others(better then shafted meetings)...however, even if a RL friend of mine is an evil buyer, raider or whatever else you may want to say about him, he is my RL friend...and althought I would pick a server I like over him, if I could group him occasionnally on a 3rd party place where neither of us can abuse the others since our games features are outclassing the others, the happier we are(even if it mean a place where we are all nerfed badly, anyway nerfed zone = challenge and fun to be with RL friends, and since I will only be there with them, I would care a lot less about how those places are designed...althought they should be grouping centered since most RL friends stuff is about groups size, not raid size). Anyway, specifics servers rules is what may make Vanguard the best game ever. I would not care if Afterlife is happy on their lame server, they dont affect me on my place of the world!
And they will consider I am on a noob group limited server, which I will tell them to bug of or join an open PvP server...LOL
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Woody interviews Brad on the selling of virtual items. Released earlier today.