That was quite interesting, I realy enjoyd the part where they did a research on theyr forum users.
It was interesting, however, it was also very disheartening in that the only research they did utiliziing forum users was too see how best to squeeze more money out of them. That was my take at least!
Before they did their research, EA were making only half of what they had predicted on item sales, and weren't meeting the revenue targets they had planned for. If you had a business that was only making half of the profits that you planned for, wouldn't you want to find out what your customers wanted to buy so you could sell it to them? This is Business 101.
Their customers didn't want to buy much from them apparently and most were just taking advantage of a fun F2P title... Let me say again free to play title. Sure it's a business and they need to make money but when you've made a game with the F2P label and are upset when it's not raking in the dollars well did they honestly expect everyone would wanna pay for virtual clothing?
And the research on the forum users wasn't to find out how to squeeze money out of them. It was to study the disconnect between all the nerd rage and flames on their boards and the fact that they were making more money after selling permanaent weapons. If you listened to the message boards and to the gaming press, Battlefield Heroes had been destroyed and the players were pissed and leaving in droves, but none of the internal numbers showed that at all.
You said it yourself, "EA were only making half of what they had predicted", so what did they do? The tried multiple things, of course, like new payment methods, bundle e-clothing, raising the prices on rental weapons, and lessening the amount of in game currency. When none of these things had as much impact as was desired they researched their forum users to see just how much outrage would be caused by the implementation of pay for power items. If you read between the lines (listen between the lines in this case) then you would realize that yes, they basically did forum research with the primary goal of using whatever information they acquired to increase profits however they could based on the data received!
EA could have done research on how to make their game play far better and thus gain more users and perhaps proliferate the in game spending of their current user base. Instead they just made sure implementing the pay for power transactions wasn't going to cost them players further crippling their games potential for success.
Turned out that the people posting all that nerd rage on the boards were spending ten times as much as everyone else in the game, making all their flames and threats to leave and nerd rage entirely hypocritical. That's the point.
Disheartening isn't it. It turned out in this instance that the forum ragers were total hypocrite little b******. Good for EA but bad for the real gamers out there that really don't want pay to win content or anything remotely similar. I can see future AAA mmo titles virtual stores stocked to the e-ceiling with powerful gear while the developers just think to themselves, "Well, look how much money EA is making!"
Their customers didn't want to buy much from them apparently and most were just taking advantage of a fun F2P title... Let me say again free to play title. Sure it's a business and they need to make money but when you've made a game with the F2P label and are upset when it's not raking in the dollars well did they honestly expect everyone would wanna pay for virtual clothing?
Did you listen to what he was saying? They only sold fluff items and clothing at first because they didn't want to sell weapons or anything that could give players and advantage. When their sales of clothing and fluff items were half of what they'd targeted, they asked their players what they wanted.
The top answer was permanent weapons. By far. The players ASKED for weapons. They wanted to buy them with cash. EA gave them what they wanted and their revenue more than doubled instantly.
You said it yourself, "EA were only making half of what they had predicted", so what did they do? The tried multiple things, of course, like new payment methods, bundle e-clothing, raising the prices on rental weapons, and l opkessening the amount of in game currency. When none of these things had as much impact as was desired they researched their forum users to see just how much outrage would be caused by the implementation of pay for power items. If you read between the lines (listen between the lines in this case) then you would realize that yes, they basically did forum research with the primary goal of using whatever information they acquired to increase profits however they could based on the data received!
And the players asked for permanent weapons that they could buy with cash. How is it a bad thing for a business to give their customers what they want again?
EA could have done research on how to make their game play far better and thus gain more users and perhaps proliferate the in game spending of their current user base. Instead they just made sure implementing the pay for power transactions wasn't going to cost them players further crippling their games potential for success.
They instantly doubled their revenue by putting in permanent weapons. The rest of their metrics showed an upswing in people playing the game, or buying items in the game and a decrease in people leaving it. Exactly how did they cripple their game's potential for success? By every conceivable measure they succeeded once they put in the weapons.
Disheartening isn't it. It turned out in this instance that the forum ragers were total hypocrite little b******. Good for EA but bad for the real gamers out there that really don't want pay to win content or anything remotely similar. I can see future AAA mmo titles virtual stores stocked to the e-ceiling with powerful gear while the developers just think to themselves, "Well, look how much money EA is making!"
It wasn't disheartening. It was par for the course. The "Real Gamers" are the ones who spend more on a game than the casual fans. They always have been. It's a myth that the only people who spend cash on these games are the ones who don't want to work for anything. That's a hardcore gamer rationalization because they don't want to admit that they're the ones who spend more than the casuals they claim to despise.
A casual fan plays a game for a while then they move on. They don't pour extra cash into it if they don't have to. It's the hardcore, emotionally invested player that starts spending money. It's the fanboys and dedicated players that open their wallets.
Their customers didn't want to buy much from them apparently and most were just taking advantage of a fun F2P title... Let me say again free to play title. Sure it's a business and they need to make money but when you've made a game with the F2P label and are upset when it's not raking in the dollars well did they honestly expect everyone would wanna pay for virtual clothing?
Did you listen to what he was saying? They only sold fluff items and clothing at first because they didn't want to sell weapons or anything that could give players and advantage. When their sales of clothing and fluff items were half of what they'd targeted, they asked their players what they wanted.
The top answer was permanent weapons. By far. The players ASKED for weapons. They wanted to buy them with cash. EA gave them what they wanted and their revenue more than doubled instantly.
I did listen to what he was saying and he said they barely sold anything at first since it was fluff and the majority didn't give a damn. When you make it so things are no longer fluff it causes players to give a damn or lose to people who paid up.
I think it went more like... EA isn't making enough money so they gave their players a survey after their gaming session asking, which items " if available " would the players spend their money on. The players themselves never begged to be charged money for things they were renting for free again and again, as stated in the video, with the all too available in game currency. The big point of the video was that most players aren't bothered by pay to win microtransactions in as great of numbers as was formerly perceived within the industry.
Hell one of their own members on the design team flat out stated that the game was "too free" and that they were giving away too much! So instead of giving it away they just started charging for it instead. After making sure charging for it wasn't going to cost them a significant percentage of their users.
Hell one of their own members on the design team flat out stated that the game was "too free" and that they were giving away too much! So instead of giving it away they just started charging for it instead. After making sure charging for it wasn't going to cost them a significant percentage of their users.
In other words, they acted the same way any other business would act. Why is this a problem again?
It's called the gaming INDUSTRY for a reason. There are bills to pay. Talent to pay. And yes, profits to be had. I don't care who they are, no game company puts out a free game entirely out of the kindness of their hearts. What the hell did you expect them to do when they sold the fluff they thought people wanted and it didn't sell? Give up and just let the game go for free without any thought to how they would pay their staff or recoup their costs?
Hell one of their own members on the design team flat out stated that the game was "too free" and that they were giving away too much! So instead of giving it away they just started charging for it instead. After making sure charging for it wasn't going to cost them a significant percentage of their users.
In other words, they acted the same way any other business would act. Why is this a problem again?
It's called the gaming INDUSTRY for a reason. There are bills to pay. Talent to pay. And yes, profits to be had. I don't care who they are, no game company puts out a free game entirely out of the kindness of their hearts. What the hell did you expect them to do when they sold the fluff they thought people wanted and it didn't sell? Give up and just let the game go for free without any thought to how they would pay their staff or recoup their costs?
Perhaps they could have just sold the game in stores for forty or fifty dollars like has been done through the ages! Enabling everyone access to all content and a completely level playing field aside from individual player skill?
Perhaps they could have just sold the game in stores for forty or fifty dollars like has been done through the ages! Enabling everyone access to all content and a completely level playing field aside from individual player skill?
In other words, just put out another regular boxed game instead of trying to expand their business model to an online space.
What's the point of that? How does that grow their business?
Perhaps they could have just sold the game in stores for forty or fifty dollars like has been done through the ages! Enabling everyone access to all content and a completely level playing field aside from individual player skill?
In other words, just put out another regular boxed game instead of trying to expand their business model to an online space.
What's the point of that? How does that grow their business?
It's still online. A simple Google search showed me that. In fact, it's growing, since their website points out that they're now localized in eight new languages.
I think the most tragically ironic thing about the whole F2P phenomenon is that it essentially targets lower-income consumers who may not be able to afford full priced "premium" games.
And now with P2W, this lower-income group gets to be walked over by the wealthy in a video game just like they do in real life! Now that's realism .
I think the most tragically ironic thing about the whole F2P phenomenon is that it essentially targets lower-income consumers who may not be able to afford full priced "premium" games.
And now with P2W, this lower-income group gets to be walked over by the wealthy in a video game just like they do in real life! Now that's realism .
*sigh*
So now we're going to turn this into a class war debate? Lovely.
I think the most tragically ironic thing about the whole F2P phenomenon is that it essentially targets lower-income consumers who may not be able to afford full priced "premium" games.
And now with P2W, this lower-income group gets to be walked over by the wealthy in a video game just like they do in real life! Now that's realism .
*sigh*
So now we're going to turn this into a class war debate? Lovely.
I just don't get why you can't see that unfair competition is bad. I realize that companies want to make money, I realize that they will do whatever will generate the most net present value for them. That's fine. I'm not complaining about the fact that they want to make a profit and are trying to do P2W to do that.
I'm more complaining about the fact that WE are apparently accepting it. Don't people play PvP games for good competition? What's the point if you're just going to give the victory away?
On almost every PvP MMO board I go to, the #1 complaint of players, almost universally is balance. Even slight, tiny, near imperceptible imbalances between classes cause massive complain-fests on forums. Same is true on RTS boards like Starcraft.
Now we're talking about introducing INTENTIONAL imbalances in the form of P2W. I think it's ridiculous.
It's still online. A simple Google search showed me that. In fact, it's growing, since their website points out that they're now localized in eight new languages.
Also, Guild Wars 2 isn't out yet ,last I checked.
I meant look at the GW business model for their games ><... It's a B2P or Buy to play model where in you purchase the full game and get all the online services included without a monthly fee. Surely with the amount of financial clout EA has compared to that of Arenanet they could have afforded to implement a similar B2P model for Battle Field heroes and still proceeded to move their business into online frontiers.
I think the most tragically ironic thing about the whole F2P phenomenon is that it essentially targets lower-income consumers who may not be able to afford full priced "premium" games.
And now with P2W, this lower-income group gets to be walked over by the wealthy in a video game just like they do in real life! Now that's realism .
*sigh*
So now we're going to turn this into a class war debate? Lovely.
I just don't get why you can't see that unfair competition is bad. I realize that companies want to make money, I realize that they will do whatever will generate the most net present value for them. That's fine. I'm not complaining about the fact that they want to make a profit and are trying to do P2W to do that.
I'm more complaining about the fact that WE are apparently accepting it. Don't people play PvP games for good competition? What's the point if you're just going to give the victory away?
On almost every PvP MMO board I go to, the #1 complaint of players, almost universally is balance. Even slight, tiny, near imperceptible imbalances between classes cause massive complain-fests on forums. Same is true on RTS boards like Starcraft.
Now we're talking about introducing INTENTIONAL imbalances in the form of P2W. I think it's ridiculous.
Offering weapons and items that the players want in the game and which are not overpowered to a ridiculous degree is not the same as unfair competition.
Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and which the EA presentation makes clear, the players are the ones who wanted the permanent weapons that they could buy with cash. How is it unfair when it's what the players demand?
BTW, MMO players of all stripes have been accepting this for years, even if they don't want to admit it. All those rage threads years ago when SOE was going after eBay sellers who were selling items, plat, and characters in the game, saying that Sony were assholes for stopping people from profiting off all their hard work in the game? All the PL services and gold farmers that people used? It all led to this now. What we are seeing now in F2P + cash shop and Freemium games didn't pop up overnight. It's not some evil plot to walk all over the poor. It happened because it's what gamers told the developers they wanted, through their own actions and words.
Players have been intentionally imbalancing these games for ages. The only difference now is that the developers are the ones controlling the imbalances and making sure that they don't actually break the game.
It's still online. A simple Google search showed me that. In fact, it's growing, since their website points out that they're now localized in eight new languages.
Also, Guild Wars 2 isn't out yet ,last I checked.
I meant look at the GW business model for their games ><... It's a B2P or Buy to play model where in you purchase the full game and get all the online services included without a monthly fee. Surely with the amount of financial clout EA has compared to that of Arenabet they could have afforded to implement a similar B2P model for Battle Field heroes and still proceeded to move their business into online frontiers.
With their clout, they could also create an F2P + cash shop game to appeal to shooter fans and to test the waters of a new market, whch is what they did.
There are plenty of reasons to crticize EA. Their sports game monopolies, for one. But you can't blame them for wanting to try their hand at the browser-based F2P gaming model, and for wanting it to succeed. At least I can't. I'd do the same thing.
I think the most tragically ironic thing about the whole F2P phenomenon is that it essentially targets lower-income consumers who may not be able to afford full priced "premium" games.
And now with P2W, this lower-income group gets to be walked over by the wealthy in a video game just like they do in real life! Now that's realism .
*sigh*
So now we're going to turn this into a class war debate? Lovely.
I just don't get why you can't see that unfair competition is bad. I realize that companies want to make money, I realize that they will do whatever will generate the most net present value for them. That's fine. I'm not complaining about the fact that they want to make a profit and are trying to do P2W to do that.
I'm more complaining about the fact that WE are apparently accepting it. Don't people play PvP games for good competition? What's the point if you're just going to give the victory away?
On almost every PvP MMO board I go to, the #1 complaint of players, almost universally is balance. Even slight, tiny, near imperceptible imbalances between classes cause massive complain-fests on forums. Same is true on RTS boards like Starcraft.
Now we're talking about introducing INTENTIONAL imbalances in the form of P2W. I think it's ridiculous.
Offering weapons and items that the players want in the game and which are not overpowered to a ridiculous degree is not the same as unfair competition.
Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and which the EA presentation makes clear, the players are the ones who wanted the permanent weapons that they could buy with cash. How is it unfair when it's what the players demand?
BTW, MMO players of all stripes have been accepting this for years, even if they don't want to admit it. All those rage threads years ago when SOE was going after eBay sellers who were selling items, plat, and characters in the game, saying that Sony were assholes for stopping people from profiting off all their hard work in the game? All the PL services and gold farmers that people used? It all led to this now. What we are seeing now in F2P + cash shop and Freemium games didn't pop up overnight. It's not some evil plot to walk all over the poor. It happened because it's what gamers told the developers they wanted, through their own actions and words.
Players have been intentionally imbalancing these games for ages. The only difference now is that the developers are the ones controlling the imbalances and making sure that they don't actually break the game.
You do touch on an interesting point here which is basically, nearly all competition is somewhat unfair. For example, some swimmers have longer arms, more hydrodynamic bodies. Some basketball players are taller, etc. So it really becomes a question of degrees as to when you label competition as being "unfair."
That said, I wouldn't really have too much of a problem with a cash shop that sold items that give extremely miniscule advantages. Like the Aug versus the Galil in Black Ops or something. Both guns can kill quite well, and the game still largely depends on who gets the first hit. I also wouldn't really consider this P2W.
On the other hand, if say, Halo had a cash shop that allowed you to spawn with a rocket launcher and a sword as your permanent weapons...yeah that's P2W. It's basically a slippery slope, and different players will interpret it in different ways.
I also think that even if the cash shop only sells items that give a miniscule advantage, it will be "implicated" as being an unfair factor in several instances. I think most players would blame their deaths on another player that is "shopped." It just makes the game feel unfair even if it really isn't.
Anyway, I can't really argue if the players of games like BF:H want a cash shop, that's totally their perogative. Me though, I'm going to stick to games that cost a flat fee and put everyone on an even field. My only fear is that P2W will invade those games as well.
Anyway, I can't really argue if the players of games like BF:H want a cash shop, that's totally their perogative. Me though, I'm going to stick to games that cost a flat fee and put everyone on an even field. My only fear is that P2W will invade those games as well.
Thing is, even games with a flat fee aren't seen as being on an even field anyway. If they were, most of the rage threads on most MMO boards wouldn't exist.
Every time a new weapon, skill, armor set, racial bonus, or stat booster is introduced into a game, there will inevitably be the min/max guys running the numbers and parsing the info and posting long, drawn out threads that go into mind-numbing detail about why something is imbalanced and breaks their class or breaks the game or overpowers someone else. It happens all the time, F2P or P2P, sandbox or themepark, or whatever.
Beyond that, just buying the weapons in a cash shop doesn't guarantee success. The EA presentation talked about people getting satisfaction out of targeting the cash shop guys and beating them with the standard free equipment in the game. In PvP, there is still the matter of player skill in the end, regardless of your gear.
For example, take a game like TF2. I don't play shooters that often, so when I play TF2, I inevitably die a lot. Even if they had a cash shop and I bought every weapon and potential advantage for a class that I could afford, it still wouldn't matter, because I'd still die due to not being a hardcore shooter player and not having that skill set.
Sorry but I'm not buying Ben's data and reasoning, or anyone in EA's free to play deparment.
I tried his Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield Play 4 Free games being a fan of the series, but they're not Battlefield games.
They are just dumbed down game lacking plenty of basic features that any multiplayer title should have, and plenty of BF games features... Like a freaking server browser. I have seen fan-made mods with server browser, but looks like it's too hard for them.
They don't let you see the server list because people will figure out how empty those games are and quit opening their wallets to buy whatever is the next "tier" of weapons that have more bullets, are more accurate, and deal more damage, and that's the big reason behind the BF:P4F creation, those EA Pay 2 win games aren't doing as well as they would want you to believe.
Just stick to normal retail games, EA's F2P titles are garbage.
Anyway, I can't really argue if the players of games like BF:H want a cash shop, that's totally their perogative. Me though, I'm going to stick to games that cost a flat fee and put everyone on an even field. My only fear is that P2W will invade those games as well.
Thing is, even games with a flat fee aren't seen as being on an even field anyway. If they were, most of the rage threads on most MMO boards wouldn't exist.
Every time a new weapon, skill, armor set, racial bonus, or stat booster is introduced into a game, there will inevitably be the min/max guys running the numbers and parsing the info and posting long, drawn out threads that go into mind-numbing detail about why something is imbalanced and breaks their class or breaks the game or overpowers someone else. It happens all the time, F2P or P2P, sandbox or themepark, or whatever.
Beyond that, just buying the weapons in a cash shop doesn't guarantee success. The EA presentation talked about people getting satisfaction out of targeting the cash shop guys and beating them with the standard free equipment in the game. In PvP, there is still the matter of player skill in the end, regardless of your gear.
For example, take a game like TF2. I don't play shooters that often, so when I play TF2, I inevitably die a lot. Even if they had a cash shop and I bought every weapon and potential advantage for a class that I could afford, it still wouldn't matter, because I'd still die due to not being a hardcore shooter player and not having that skill set.
Yes, of course if you absolutely suck at shooters buying a great weapon doesn't guarantee success. If it did, that would be a very poorly made game. That still doesn't prove anything. Most people that habitually play multiplayer shooters are pretty good at them. And a good weapon definitely can give one good player an advantage over another.
And you're right, video games aren't 100% fair, they never are. But just because they aren't 100% fair, that doesn't mean you should just say f%#k it and destroy any semblance of balance with a cash shop. All those gripes and rage on the forums? They are typically eventually addressed by the developer. And sometimes, games get to a point where thye become balanced enough to become a legitimate sport.
Pursuant to that, I bring up the example of S. Korea and Starcraft. Many in S. Korea view Starcraft as their national sport (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-27/tech/south.korea.starcraft_1_starcraft-ii-gaming-market-internet-cafes?_s=PM:TECH). They obviously really care about it being a fair competition and there is a lot of sponsorship money behind their "cyber-athletes." Can't you see how a cash shop would DESTROY this culture that has built up around Starcraft?
As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there is a place and a market for cash shops. If people want a place to spend money to get an advantage, that's fine. But you can't marginalize the importance of fair competition in video games. In my opinion, the "serious" video games should never have P2W cash shops.
And you're right, video games aren't 100% fair, they never are. But just because they aren't 100% fair, that doesn't mean you should just say f%#k it and destroy any semblance of balance with a cash shop.
You're assuming that a cash shop automatically destroys any semblance of balance in a game. I'm not. I think there are ways that a cash shop can be implemented without breaking the game. I think Battlefield Heroes had a good idea -- the permanent weapoons really didn't offer much over the weapons already in the game, and didn't make much of a difference if the players using the standard weapons were better players than the cash shop players. If anything, it gave most players incentive to get better so they could beat the cash shop players.
Of course, as a rule I don't PvP much, and when I do I don't take it all that seriously. For me it's a way to blow off a bit of steam and not much more.
And bringing in South Korea's Starcraft II professional leagues isn'ta fair comparison. They have rules for the games when they have regulation matches. It's not like a bunch of guys getting together for a LAN party in some dude's garage or man cave. They use standard equipment, the officials load up the games and make sure that no one is using any cheats, exploits, or anything that would give them an advantage. A cash shop wouldn't be a factor for the pro leagues there at all.
And you're right, video games aren't 100% fair, they never are. But just because they aren't 100% fair, that doesn't mean you should just say f%#k it and destroy any semblance of balance with a cash shop.
You're assuming that a cash shop automatically destroys any semblance of balance in a game. I'm not. I think there are ways that a cash shop can be implemented without breaking the game. I think Battlefield Heroes had a good idea -- the permanent weapoons really didn't offer much over the weapons already in the game, and didn't make much of a difference if the players using the standard weapons were better players than the cash shop players. If anything, it gave most players incentive to get better so they could beat the cash shop players.
Of course, as a rule I don't PvP much, and when I do I don't take it all that seriously. For me it's a way to blow off a bit of steam and not much more.
And bringing in South Korea's Starcraft II professional leagues isn'ta fair comparison. They have rules for the games when they have regulation matches. It's not like a bunch of guys getting together for a LAN party in some dude's garage or man cave. They use standard equipment, the officials load up the games and make sure that no one is using any cheats, exploits, or anything that would give them an advantage. A cash shop wouldn't be a factor for the pro leagues there at all.
What you described is just the same as anyone playing a ladder match on Battle.NET, no different. There's no cheating there, there are regulation rules. And if someone does cheat, they can get banned. I don't know what "equipment" you are talking about. I don't see how someone's mouse of keyboard is going to give them a huge advantage.
It's called a fair competition and it exists in video games.
Yes a cash shop doesn't immediately wreck a game, but it sure can. If you allow people to buy items that they could just grind up to like in Black Ops system, then that's probably okay, lazy, but okay. But if you sell items that give an advantage over someone that didnt' pay then I don't think that's really fair. At that point PvP is just a "messing around" affair.
What you described is just the same as anyone playing a ladder match on Battle.NET, no different. There's no cheating there, there are regulation rules. And if someone does cheat, they can get banned. I don't know what "equipment" you are talking about. I don't see how someone's mouse of keyboard is going to give them a huge advantage.
What I mean by equipment is that the computers they use in the professional leagues in South Korea for matches are all going to be the same. No one is going to have a technical advantage in terms of having a faster CPU or more RAM or a faster connection, or whatever.
It's called a fair competition and it exists in video games.
And it can also exist with a cash shop game, provided the gear in the cash shop is balanced against the standard gear and doesn't overpower anyone to a ridiculous degree. Cash shops won't ever be used in a pro league, so that's a non-issue. For regular players, it CAN be done without completely breaking the game, no matter what people might say.
Yes a cash shop doesn't immediately wreck a game, but it sure can. If you allow people to buy items that they could just grind up to like in Black Ops system, then that's probably okay, lazy, but okay. But if you sell items that give an advantage over someone that didnt' pay then I don't think that's really fair. At that point PvP is just a "messing around" affair.
For most players, PvP *is* a messing around affair. So are MMOs, and shooters, and fighting games, and every other genre of video game you can think of. They're the 98% of players who never go to boards, never post, and who rarely or never buy from a cash shop. It's the other 2%, the hardcore, that raise more of a fuss about these things. It's a scant few players who get that emotionally invested in a game where a cash shop weapon could possibly destroy anything.
In the end, it's all a matter of degree. If a weapon or an armor set in a cash shop is the ONLY way to win in a video game, or to beat a boss, or whatever, then I'd call bullshit on that. But if the weapons in the shop really aren't much of an improvement over what's already in the game and what can be achieved through normal gameplay, then I don't see the issue.
What you described is just the same as anyone playing a ladder match on Battle.NET, no different. There's no cheating there, there are regulation rules. And if someone does cheat, they can get banned. I don't know what "equipment" you are talking about. I don't see how someone's mouse of keyboard is going to give them a huge advantage.
What I mean by equipment is that the computers they use in the professional leagues in South Korea for matches are all going to be the same. No one is going to have a technical advantage in terms of having a faster CPU or more RAM or a faster connection, or whatever.
It's called a fair competition and it exists in video games.
And it can also exist with a cash shop game, provided the gear in the cash shop is balanced against the standard gear and doesn't overpower anyone to a ridiculous degree. Cash shops won't ever be used in a pro league, so that's a non-issue. For regular players, it CAN be done without completely breaking the game, no matter what people might say.
Yes a cash shop doesn't immediately wreck a game, but it sure can. If you allow people to buy items that they could just grind up to like in Black Ops system, then that's probably okay, lazy, but okay. But if you sell items that give an advantage over someone that didnt' pay then I don't think that's really fair. At that point PvP is just a "messing around" affair.
For most players, PvP *is* a messing around affair. So are MMOs, and shooters, and fighting games, and every other genre of video game you can think of. They're the 98% of players who never go to boards, never post, and who rarely or never buy from a cash shop. It's the other 2%, the hardcore, that raise more of a fuss about these things. It's a scant few players who get that emotionally invested in a game where a cash shop weapon could possibly destroy anything.
In the end, it's all a matter of degree. If a weapon or an armor set in a cash shop is the ONLY way to win in a video game, or to beat a boss, or whatever, then I'd call bullshit on that. But if the weapons in the shop really aren't much of an improvement over what's already in the game and what can be achieved through normal gameplay, then I don't see the issue.
Every single player I have ever PvP'd with wanted to win. They may have been playing for fun, but they still wanted to win. It's competitive. Whether on PC, XBOX Live, or whatever, they all want to win. I think that's basically the point of PvP.
You don't have to train for 6 hours a day just to want to play competitively and win against players of similar skill levels to you. That's why ladders and such on games like SC2 are so popular.
And yeah, I think we both agree with it being a matter of degree. As I said before, I don't think it would be a huge deal with Black Ops sold "early access" to the guns that you receive just by playing the game anyway. It's not really an unfair advantage more than the game already offers. You're just skipping the grinding component of the game.
I think the only part we disagree on is that you feel that the majority of players who do PvP gaming are not very competitive, and I've seen the exact opposite. It's rare to find a player that is just goofing off and doesn't care about losing. These players typically don't play long anyway.
Absolutely Disgusting. A successful business is employing a proven market strategy to make more money! How do they sleep at night!
There are more expensive hobbies than F2P gaming (I assure you). I don't go flying off the handle when Atomic sells their snowboards for 800 bucks a pop, if a dude wants to spend 10 bucks on a gameplay advantage or an aesthetic change, let him do so, and don't chastise people for following a hobby or the companies who have found ways to be more successful. Is it exploitative? All MMO gaming is, it focuses on the concept of operant conditioning, so this is no different than paying a sub.
It may seem like a small, trivial feature now, but give it a tiny bit of success and microtransactions will explode into something terrible. That's why so many of us are against the idea. Bottom line is, if you offer a subscription for your game, do not, under any circumstances, offer a microtransaction as well or I will refuse to give you business.
There is no other side to this argument. Microtransactions are a greedy move approved by greedy corporations who are not run by passionate artists, but by buck-toothed, greasy-haired salesmen. Here's basically what's happening:
Company sells you the box price.
Company forces a monthly fee down your throat for the standard service.
Company, after it gains a healthy profit and success, decides it has enough of a playerbase to establish a microtransaction service. They know you've invested time, money and effort into this and won't easily back down.
This microtransaction service is like offering a "premium" service for the game. Lemme remind you, you bought the game for the full price (possibly more if you consider the purchase of a Collector's Edition), have been a loyal subscriber, but that's not enough. Your hard work, which is quite an achievement, is now accessible to casuals who just started the game five minutes ago. What you accomplished is no longer an accomplishment, and is no longer special, because anyone with money no longer has to work hard at the game. And if that's the case, then what's the point of even playing in the first place?
Bottom line is, everyone in a game should have to spend the same amount of time towards their goals, to make things fair and satisfactory. Otherwise, you're cheating your way through the game via money, and that's not the point of gaming. There is no other side to this argument, and I don't know why it's still being debated.
I bought a new car yesterday. Wonderful thing. I got the car delivered - free of charge Nice company! However, I needed to pay extra for the wheels. No biggie, the car didn't cost that much to begin with. I wanted to take her out for a spin this afternoon, but I notice that I didn't have a steering wheel. Lucikly the company that sold me the car is just up the road. I went ahead an got myself a nice steering wheel with a skin cover. Brilliant!
So I take her for a spin, and race around the open roads. As I was nearing an intersection I wanted to slow down, but I couldnt! Missed an oncoming car by inches... Driving slowly home to my garage, shaken by the episode, I called the company and told them what happened. The man was very nice, and asked me if I had remembered to buy break pumps. "Uh oh...No" I replied. "Well, there you go. Come by us on the way and I'll make you a nice price". I'm so pleased by their service mindedness.
So, well at home I fully inspect the vehicle, and I notice I will need a few other products to make this work. Headlights, a special key to open the trunk, and a bigger fuel tank (the default one comes with a 4 litre capacity), and roll down side-windows. I'm a bit worried about getting enough "starter keys" because they only make starter keys that last for 1 hour. After that the engine dies, so I need to stock pile them. Luckily they have a special deal - they sell 20 starter keys and a modified glove compartment that can hold them for only 29.95.
I'm really looking forward to taking my new shiny car on a road trip and enjoy the beatiful scenery. I can subscribe to a mobile app that allows me to cross county borders for only 5 bucks per crossing!
Comments
[quote]
Originally posted by Vahrane
Did you listen to what he was saying? They only sold fluff items and clothing at first because they didn't want to sell weapons or anything that could give players and advantage. When their sales of clothing and fluff items were half of what they'd targeted, they asked their players what they wanted.
The top answer was permanent weapons. By far. The players ASKED for weapons. They wanted to buy them with cash. EA gave them what they wanted and their revenue more than doubled instantly.
And the players asked for permanent weapons that they could buy with cash. How is it a bad thing for a business to give their customers what they want again?
They instantly doubled their revenue by putting in permanent weapons. The rest of their metrics showed an upswing in people playing the game, or buying items in the game and a decrease in people leaving it. Exactly how did they cripple their game's potential for success? By every conceivable measure they succeeded once they put in the weapons.
It wasn't disheartening. It was par for the course. The "Real Gamers" are the ones who spend more on a game than the casual fans. They always have been. It's a myth that the only people who spend cash on these games are the ones who don't want to work for anything. That's a hardcore gamer rationalization because they don't want to admit that they're the ones who spend more than the casuals they claim to despise.
A casual fan plays a game for a while then they move on. They don't pour extra cash into it if they don't have to. It's the hardcore, emotionally invested player that starts spending money. It's the fanboys and dedicated players that open their wallets.
I did listen to what he was saying and he said they barely sold anything at first since it was fluff and the majority didn't give a damn. When you make it so things are no longer fluff it causes players to give a damn or lose to people who paid up.
I think it went more like... EA isn't making enough money so they gave their players a survey after their gaming session asking, which items " if available " would the players spend their money on. The players themselves never begged to be charged money for things they were renting for free again and again, as stated in the video, with the all too available in game currency. The big point of the video was that most players aren't bothered by pay to win microtransactions in as great of numbers as was formerly perceived within the industry.
Hell one of their own members on the design team flat out stated that the game was "too free" and that they were giving away too much! So instead of giving it away they just started charging for it instead. After making sure charging for it wasn't going to cost them a significant percentage of their users.
In other words, they acted the same way any other business would act. Why is this a problem again?
It's called the gaming INDUSTRY for a reason. There are bills to pay. Talent to pay. And yes, profits to be had. I don't care who they are, no game company puts out a free game entirely out of the kindness of their hearts. What the hell did you expect them to do when they sold the fluff they thought people wanted and it didn't sell? Give up and just let the game go for free without any thought to how they would pay their staff or recoup their costs?
Perhaps they could have just sold the game in stores for forty or fifty dollars like has been done through the ages! Enabling everyone access to all content and a completely level playing field aside from individual player skill?
In other words, just put out another regular boxed game instead of trying to expand their business model to an online space.
What's the point of that? How does that grow their business?
It could still be online... Look at GW2 sir!
It's still online. A simple Google search showed me that. In fact, it's growing, since their website points out that they're now localized in eight new languages.
Also, Guild Wars 2 isn't out yet ,last I checked.
I think the most tragically ironic thing about the whole F2P phenomenon is that it essentially targets lower-income consumers who may not be able to afford full priced "premium" games.
And now with P2W, this lower-income group gets to be walked over by the wealthy in a video game just like they do in real life! Now that's realism
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
*sigh*
So now we're going to turn this into a class war debate? Lovely.
I just don't get why you can't see that unfair competition is bad. I realize that companies want to make money, I realize that they will do whatever will generate the most net present value for them. That's fine. I'm not complaining about the fact that they want to make a profit and are trying to do P2W to do that.
I'm more complaining about the fact that WE are apparently accepting it. Don't people play PvP games for good competition? What's the point if you're just going to give the victory away?
On almost every PvP MMO board I go to, the #1 complaint of players, almost universally is balance. Even slight, tiny, near imperceptible imbalances between classes cause massive complain-fests on forums. Same is true on RTS boards like Starcraft.
Now we're talking about introducing INTENTIONAL imbalances in the form of P2W. I think it's ridiculous.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I meant look at the GW business model for their games ><... It's a B2P or Buy to play model where in you purchase the full game and get all the online services included without a monthly fee. Surely with the amount of financial clout EA has compared to that of Arenanet they could have afforded to implement a similar B2P model for Battle Field heroes and still proceeded to move their business into online frontiers.
Offering weapons and items that the players want in the game and which are not overpowered to a ridiculous degree is not the same as unfair competition.
Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and which the EA presentation makes clear, the players are the ones who wanted the permanent weapons that they could buy with cash. How is it unfair when it's what the players demand?
BTW, MMO players of all stripes have been accepting this for years, even if they don't want to admit it. All those rage threads years ago when SOE was going after eBay sellers who were selling items, plat, and characters in the game, saying that Sony were assholes for stopping people from profiting off all their hard work in the game? All the PL services and gold farmers that people used? It all led to this now. What we are seeing now in F2P + cash shop and Freemium games didn't pop up overnight. It's not some evil plot to walk all over the poor. It happened because it's what gamers told the developers they wanted, through their own actions and words.
Players have been intentionally imbalancing these games for ages. The only difference now is that the developers are the ones controlling the imbalances and making sure that they don't actually break the game.
With their clout, they could also create an F2P + cash shop game to appeal to shooter fans and to test the waters of a new market, whch is what they did.
There are plenty of reasons to crticize EA. Their sports game monopolies, for one. But you can't blame them for wanting to try their hand at the browser-based F2P gaming model, and for wanting it to succeed. At least I can't. I'd do the same thing.
You do touch on an interesting point here which is basically, nearly all competition is somewhat unfair. For example, some swimmers have longer arms, more hydrodynamic bodies. Some basketball players are taller, etc. So it really becomes a question of degrees as to when you label competition as being "unfair."
That said, I wouldn't really have too much of a problem with a cash shop that sold items that give extremely miniscule advantages. Like the Aug versus the Galil in Black Ops or something. Both guns can kill quite well, and the game still largely depends on who gets the first hit. I also wouldn't really consider this P2W.
On the other hand, if say, Halo had a cash shop that allowed you to spawn with a rocket launcher and a sword as your permanent weapons...yeah that's P2W. It's basically a slippery slope, and different players will interpret it in different ways.
I also think that even if the cash shop only sells items that give a miniscule advantage, it will be "implicated" as being an unfair factor in several instances. I think most players would blame their deaths on another player that is "shopped." It just makes the game feel unfair even if it really isn't.
Anyway, I can't really argue if the players of games like BF:H want a cash shop, that's totally their perogative. Me though, I'm going to stick to games that cost a flat fee and put everyone on an even field. My only fear is that P2W will invade those games as well.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Thing is, even games with a flat fee aren't seen as being on an even field anyway. If they were, most of the rage threads on most MMO boards wouldn't exist.
Every time a new weapon, skill, armor set, racial bonus, or stat booster is introduced into a game, there will inevitably be the min/max guys running the numbers and parsing the info and posting long, drawn out threads that go into mind-numbing detail about why something is imbalanced and breaks their class or breaks the game or overpowers someone else. It happens all the time, F2P or P2P, sandbox or themepark, or whatever.
Beyond that, just buying the weapons in a cash shop doesn't guarantee success. The EA presentation talked about people getting satisfaction out of targeting the cash shop guys and beating them with the standard free equipment in the game. In PvP, there is still the matter of player skill in the end, regardless of your gear.
For example, take a game like TF2. I don't play shooters that often, so when I play TF2, I inevitably die a lot. Even if they had a cash shop and I bought every weapon and potential advantage for a class that I could afford, it still wouldn't matter, because I'd still die due to not being a hardcore shooter player and not having that skill set.
Sorry but I'm not buying Ben's data and reasoning, or anyone in EA's free to play deparment.
I tried his Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield Play 4 Free games being a fan of the series, but they're not Battlefield games.
They are just dumbed down game lacking plenty of basic features that any multiplayer title should have, and plenty of BF games features... Like a freaking server browser. I have seen fan-made mods with server browser, but looks like it's too hard for them.
They don't let you see the server list because people will figure out how empty those games are and quit opening their wallets to buy whatever is the next "tier" of weapons that have more bullets, are more accurate, and deal more damage, and that's the big reason behind the BF:P4F creation, those EA Pay 2 win games aren't doing as well as they would want you to believe.
Just stick to normal retail games, EA's F2P titles are garbage.
Yes, of course if you absolutely suck at shooters buying a great weapon doesn't guarantee success. If it did, that would be a very poorly made game. That still doesn't prove anything. Most people that habitually play multiplayer shooters are pretty good at them. And a good weapon definitely can give one good player an advantage over another.
And you're right, video games aren't 100% fair, they never are. But just because they aren't 100% fair, that doesn't mean you should just say f%#k it and destroy any semblance of balance with a cash shop. All those gripes and rage on the forums? They are typically eventually addressed by the developer. And sometimes, games get to a point where thye become balanced enough to become a legitimate sport.
Pursuant to that, I bring up the example of S. Korea and Starcraft. Many in S. Korea view Starcraft as their national sport (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-27/tech/south.korea.starcraft_1_starcraft-ii-gaming-market-internet-cafes?_s=PM:TECH). They obviously really care about it being a fair competition and there is a lot of sponsorship money behind their "cyber-athletes." Can't you see how a cash shop would DESTROY this culture that has built up around Starcraft?
As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there is a place and a market for cash shops. If people want a place to spend money to get an advantage, that's fine. But you can't marginalize the importance of fair competition in video games. In my opinion, the "serious" video games should never have P2W cash shops.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You're assuming that a cash shop automatically destroys any semblance of balance in a game. I'm not. I think there are ways that a cash shop can be implemented without breaking the game. I think Battlefield Heroes had a good idea -- the permanent weapoons really didn't offer much over the weapons already in the game, and didn't make much of a difference if the players using the standard weapons were better players than the cash shop players. If anything, it gave most players incentive to get better so they could beat the cash shop players.
Of course, as a rule I don't PvP much, and when I do I don't take it all that seriously. For me it's a way to blow off a bit of steam and not much more.
And bringing in South Korea's Starcraft II professional leagues isn'ta fair comparison. They have rules for the games when they have regulation matches. It's not like a bunch of guys getting together for a LAN party in some dude's garage or man cave. They use standard equipment, the officials load up the games and make sure that no one is using any cheats, exploits, or anything that would give them an advantage. A cash shop wouldn't be a factor for the pro leagues there at all.
What you described is just the same as anyone playing a ladder match on Battle.NET, no different. There's no cheating there, there are regulation rules. And if someone does cheat, they can get banned. I don't know what "equipment" you are talking about. I don't see how someone's mouse of keyboard is going to give them a huge advantage.
It's called a fair competition and it exists in video games.
Yes a cash shop doesn't immediately wreck a game, but it sure can. If you allow people to buy items that they could just grind up to like in Black Ops system, then that's probably okay, lazy, but okay. But if you sell items that give an advantage over someone that didnt' pay then I don't think that's really fair. At that point PvP is just a "messing around" affair.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Originally posted by Creslin321
What I mean by equipment is that the computers they use in the professional leagues in South Korea for matches are all going to be the same. No one is going to have a technical advantage in terms of having a faster CPU or more RAM or a faster connection, or whatever.
And it can also exist with a cash shop game, provided the gear in the cash shop is balanced against the standard gear and doesn't overpower anyone to a ridiculous degree. Cash shops won't ever be used in a pro league, so that's a non-issue. For regular players, it CAN be done without completely breaking the game, no matter what people might say.
For most players, PvP *is* a messing around affair. So are MMOs, and shooters, and fighting games, and every other genre of video game you can think of. They're the 98% of players who never go to boards, never post, and who rarely or never buy from a cash shop. It's the other 2%, the hardcore, that raise more of a fuss about these things. It's a scant few players who get that emotionally invested in a game where a cash shop weapon could possibly destroy anything.
In the end, it's all a matter of degree. If a weapon or an armor set in a cash shop is the ONLY way to win in a video game, or to beat a boss, or whatever, then I'd call bullshit on that. But if the weapons in the shop really aren't much of an improvement over what's already in the game and what can be achieved through normal gameplay, then I don't see the issue.
Every single player I have ever PvP'd with wanted to win. They may have been playing for fun, but they still wanted to win. It's competitive. Whether on PC, XBOX Live, or whatever, they all want to win. I think that's basically the point of PvP.
You don't have to train for 6 hours a day just to want to play competitively and win against players of similar skill levels to you. That's why ladders and such on games like SC2 are so popular.
And yeah, I think we both agree with it being a matter of degree. As I said before, I don't think it would be a huge deal with Black Ops sold "early access" to the guns that you receive just by playing the game anyway. It's not really an unfair advantage more than the game already offers. You're just skipping the grinding component of the game.
I think the only part we disagree on is that you feel that the majority of players who do PvP gaming are not very competitive, and I've seen the exact opposite. It's rare to find a player that is just goofing off and doesn't care about losing. These players typically don't play long anyway.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Absolutely Disgusting. A successful business is employing a proven market strategy to make more money! How do they sleep at night!
There are more expensive hobbies than F2P gaming (I assure you). I don't go flying off the handle when Atomic sells their snowboards for 800 bucks a pop, if a dude wants to spend 10 bucks on a gameplay advantage or an aesthetic change, let him do so, and don't chastise people for following a hobby or the companies who have found ways to be more successful. Is it exploitative? All MMO gaming is, it focuses on the concept of operant conditioning, so this is no different than paying a sub.
It may seem like a small, trivial feature now, but give it a tiny bit of success and microtransactions will explode into something terrible. That's why so many of us are against the idea. Bottom line is, if you offer a subscription for your game, do not, under any circumstances, offer a microtransaction as well or I will refuse to give you business.
There is no other side to this argument. Microtransactions are a greedy move approved by greedy corporations who are not run by passionate artists, but by buck-toothed, greasy-haired salesmen. Here's basically what's happening:
Company sells you the box price.
Company forces a monthly fee down your throat for the standard service.
Company, after it gains a healthy profit and success, decides it has enough of a playerbase to establish a microtransaction service. They know you've invested time, money and effort into this and won't easily back down.
This microtransaction service is like offering a "premium" service for the game. Lemme remind you, you bought the game for the full price (possibly more if you consider the purchase of a Collector's Edition), have been a loyal subscriber, but that's not enough. Your hard work, which is quite an achievement, is now accessible to casuals who just started the game five minutes ago. What you accomplished is no longer an accomplishment, and is no longer special, because anyone with money no longer has to work hard at the game. And if that's the case, then what's the point of even playing in the first place?
Bottom line is, everyone in a game should have to spend the same amount of time towards their goals, to make things fair and satisfactory. Otherwise, you're cheating your way through the game via money, and that's not the point of gaming. There is no other side to this argument, and I don't know why it's still being debated.
I bought a new car yesterday. Wonderful thing. I got the car delivered - free of charge
Nice company! However, I needed to pay extra for the wheels. No biggie, the car didn't cost that much to begin with. I wanted to take her out for a spin this afternoon, but I notice that I didn't have a steering wheel. Lucikly the company that sold me the car is just up the road. I went ahead an got myself a nice steering wheel with a skin cover. Brilliant!
So I take her for a spin, and race around the open roads. As I was nearing an intersection I wanted to slow down, but I couldnt! Missed an oncoming car by inches... Driving slowly home to my garage, shaken by the episode, I called the company and told them what happened. The man was very nice, and asked me if I had remembered to buy break pumps. "Uh oh...No" I replied. "Well, there you go. Come by us on the way and I'll make you a nice price". I'm so pleased by their service mindedness.
So, well at home I fully inspect the vehicle, and I notice I will need a few other products to make this work. Headlights, a special key to open the trunk, and a bigger fuel tank (the default one comes with a 4 litre capacity), and roll down side-windows. I'm a bit worried about getting enough "starter keys" because they only make starter keys that last for 1 hour. After that the engine dies, so I need to stock pile them. Luckily they have a special deal - they sell 20 starter keys and a modified glove compartment that can hold them for only 29.95.
I'm really looking forward to taking my new shiny car on a road trip and enjoy the beatiful scenery. I can subscribe to a mobile app that allows me to cross county borders for only 5 bucks per crossing!
Sincerely,
Happy new car owner