I take issue with gold buying from outside sources, if it is illegal within the terms of a game user agreement. If the company supplying the game is selling the virtual coin or gems themselves it is up front and I have a choice whether to agree to that or not to bother.
The "illegal" source of gold buying is horrible and any human funding that is filth. My opinion on that has never and will never change even with the "times".
I take issue with gold buying from outside sources, if it is illegal within the terms of a game user agreement. If the company supplying the game is selling the virtual coin or gems themselves it is up front and I have a choice whether to agree to that or not to bother.
The "illegal" source of gold buying is horrible and any human funding that is filth. My opinion on that has never and will never change even with the "times".
Well, no one can ever stop illegal gold buying. The best is to "legalize" it like what blizz did with Diablo 3.
Yeah it was "publically" frowned upon by the majority of the community and yet gold sellers were making massive profits anyway so that shoudl tell you that privately a lot of people were not frowning at all.If there was no to little demand then gold sellers and official cash shops would not exist.
The blame nickle and diming of games in today's market rests solely on today's consumers and not the companies who are just doing what they should be doing trying to maximize profits,it's up to consuemrs to tellt hem when they've gone to far.Past generations would have todl them so already for they valued th emoney they earned far more on a whole.Today we rationalize wasting our money and lack perspective outside our own wants and addictions.
I personally don;t like the whole box price+sub fee+Cash shop model that seems to be trending now but I knwo I'll be int he minority and will have to in the future either accept it or stop palying MMOs.Of course it'll be interesting to see how far they push the next step after this and th eoen after that becasue today's consumer won't stop them.
I think it was frowned upon, because before the grand majority of games were confined within the games themselves; i.e. you had to obtain anything in the game you had to actually play the game. At some point, people got more and more used to using methods outside of the game to obtain things in the game and slowly it became accepted to do other things than playing the game to get stuff inside the game.
I blame the economy. Families are struggling to make ends meet, so they sell their jewelry and other prized possessions for pennies on the dollar to scammers and swindlers who resell them at huge profits. Not to mention, gold as a commodity is historically high in price, yet these companies still act like we're in the 90's in terms of what they will pay you.
Selling gold, rmah and CS is preety big factor to me when deciding if to play or not play. Freequently it is deciding one.
So I take it under consideration and I would choose 8/10 game without those over 9/10 with gold seeling, CS, etc anytime.
For some type of games like sandbox mmorpg CS, gold seeling or rmah woule even be automatic disqualify whole game for me.
Even in themepark it can be decisive though. I think my decision to leave Lotro after over a year of continuos playing was factored in 2/3 rds by cash shop and it's impact on a game, immersion ruin and my personal very subjective enjoyment.
I think the overall perception of paying money for pixels has become more widely accepted. Lets face it, resistance is futile. Even some single player games have cash shops and extra content you can pay for, rather than a standalone sequel or expansion. More and more, it will be the companies who develop the product who are the ones selling the pixels. This protects the buyer and lets the developers create the game with being able to keep a stable economy and still make a profit off pixels, at least in theory.
I still believe it cheapens the experience in most Online RPGs where players would be better off earning their rewards, but there are certain games where it makes sence, such as Second Life. Cash for gold or pixels will always be optional though, because even if players are forced to spend cash to succeed, people are never forced to play the game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Yeah it was "publically" frowned upon by the majority of the community and yet gold sellers were making massive profits anyway so that shoudl tell you that privately a lot of people were not frowning at all.If there was no to little demand then gold sellers and official cash shops would not exist.
That is not necessarily true. As we know that in F2P games, a very small percentage of the player population (whales) pay for most of the game.
The same is probably true in gold trading: a small percentage of players spending a lot of money.
Personally, i don't frown upon it at all. Selling back my D3 stuff for cash is cool. It does not make a lot of money, but still .. it is fun to earn real money instead of just gold.
I still believe it cheapens the experience in most Online RPGs where players would be better off earning their rewards, but there are certain games where it makes sence, such as Second Life. Cash for gold or pixels will always be optional though, because even if players are forced to spend cash to succeed, people are never forced to play the game.
Since there are a lot of adult gamers who make their own living, they *are* earning their rewards, just not in the game.
Selling gold, rmah and CS is preety big factor to me when deciding if to play or not play. Freequently it is deciding one.
So I take it under consideration and I would choose 8/10 game without those over 9/10 with gold seeling, CS, etc anytime.
For some type of games like sandbox mmorpg CS, gold seeling or rmah woule even be automatic disqualify whole game for me.
Even in themepark it can be decisive though. I think my decision to leave Lotro after over a year of continuos playing was factored in 2/3 rds by cash shop and it's impact on a game, immersion ruin and my personal very subjective enjoyment.
Well, for me, i don't care.
In fact, a RMAH is slightly positive to me since i can sell my in-game stuff for cash. It is fun to turn my virtual stuff into real value (not a lot of money, granted .. but feel better than making some in-game gold).
And when i am quiting the game (since no game last forever), i can turn my vritual stuff back to money, and move on to the next game.
Not long ago it was frowned upon yet a lot of people did it anyways. They made a business out of it and it allowed them to purchase rare gear in game that actually affected the economy, crafting, and their own power.
Nowadays everything is failry easy to get and we can purchase lots of fluff stuff.
But the goldsellers made huge ammounts of real monney as more and more people where buying gold, which killed the ingame econnomy of many games. Some farmers in certain openworld games even ruined my actuall game experience.
Atleast this way, while not being really buy gold for real money, its a controlled effort, with way less influence on the ingame economy. That is what Eve proved.
Games kill themselves when people get bored and leave.
If the game is good, people will tolerate a certain number of bugs and RMT activity. The oldest MMO out there ( Ultima Online ) allows RMT to occur, without participating in it themselves, and the game is still viable and running after 15 years. I don't really buy your idea that gold sellers destroy economies. I think players need to be able to participate in that same economy and know the game company is acting as an impartial protector of their assets. The obvious comparison here is real-world government. Governments with small-business friendly policies and who respect property rights will grow their economy. Governments who restrict economic participation to cabals and wave the "ban stick" end up like something from the middle ages. Same principles apply to virtual worlds. In fact, the moment gold sellers LEAVE your game, you should worry because you know if they smell death on the game they'll be the first to shift priorities.
It was frowned upon before Blizzard decided to up and give it a shot for some form of 'aesthetic' item. (Remember that shit? Community backlash should have been five hundred times worse than it had ever been. But it wasn't.)
And god forbid Blizzard -ever- does -anything- wrong in the eyes of their playerbase. It's not possible. So, because they decided that they could make even more money outside of subscription fees, they set the playerbase straight and told everyone that buying items for real currency was not bad, and not something to be frowned upon.
Case and point? D3's RMAH says 'Hello' as it pushes the RMT boundaries. If they had pulled a stunt like that 'back in the day', they'd be condemned to eternal damnation.
It is obviously now an accepted tradition in the gaming society.
A company can say its OK and then decline to participate themselves.
You have to make the player
1) secure in the belief that his assets are protected FROM the company's ban-stick, and
2) secure in the belief that the company isn't skewing the play experience to generate an artificial need for the benefits the company is selling.
IMO the game company should be like a government that protects the level playing field, protects commerce, protects property. At that point you might have a blooming virtual economy, IF the other aspects of the game are compelling and people want to play. Too many companies bungle this formula, and either whore their game out with a contrived pay-2-win conflict, or assert the worthlessness of player property by holding the ban stick above their head. BOTH aspects need to go away. Otherwise the level of investment a player puts into your virtual world goes only up to the point where they think "I'm bored, I can't justify the fee, and my account is worthless anyway." I maintained an active UO account for YEARS after I quit playing conventionally, and only because I knew in the back of my head, this thing is worth $140, or whatever.
It's a moral question. It's either right or wrong. You either are fine with it or not. But, all this flip flopping by companies with lame excuses just shows you they will wobble on any decision that might make them an extra buck. This cop out of "we can't stop them so we decided to do the selling ourself to make it safe for the customer" is a blatant lie and shows people without moral fortitude. The real problem is games are not coded with security in mind and they don't like to ban possible sources of income. The bottom line is their only motivation anymore. And the worst part is, they can't just admit that. So they continue to lie to players to try to seem on their side or earn sympathy while maintaining a hand in your pocket.
Yes i remeber how much people used to hate it but i guess people got used to it now. As far a GW2 is concerned Anet can do anything and will get a free pass from fans.
It's a moral question. It's either right or wrong.
Indeed, but a moral question with zero moral gravity. We're talking about revenue models in video games. No one is going to hell over this. I think it might be better classifiied as a gamesmanship issue, IF that. Obviously professional sportsmen buy top of the line equipment and training with their considerable revenue from sponsors, yet no one determines that they are "cheating". Ironically, I'm on your side. I prefer to see a subscription model where the role of the developer is to insure fair gameplay. I don't enjoy evaluating the necessity of a million micro-transactions WHILE I'm playing; let me decide up front what I'm in for, be that $15 for 30 days or whatever, and spend the rest of my time playing. But as far as it being a moral issue, I'm not so sure that has weight, unless you mean by that you feel "strongly" about certain types of games. That I agree with.
The whole "Selling in-game items for real life money is BAD" was started by the game companies not so much because they hated the idea of people selling in-game items for money, but because they were not getting their cut. They did not like the idea of in-game items having a value and people transacting outside their sphere of influence.
This was always a two-step process. Step one, push the whole person to person trading of items underground and turn it into a shady thing dominated by large conglomerates who cheat the people. Letting that sort of thing go on under their noses while going after any individual to individual sales HARD.
The next step is to take over the market themselves and sell power/gold in games themselves.
You see, if they did not get rid of the easy and not yet maligned person to person selling that happened in the early games -- back when it was perfectly legal to put dwarven workboots or a 113% bow on ebay and no real stigma was attached to it unless the person spammed it -- then no matter what they priced in game-gold and items at, someone would be willing to undercut it. They wanted the whole market -- the control -- and that can only happen when all competition is centralized into a few parties.
I voted yes, it has changed. It went from unauthorized third party transactions to a means for a publisher to monetize a game without subscription fee.
On the other side, I think GW2 has nothing to do with the change happening. It's not even released yet, and many other games already use cash shop sales as their primary revenue stream.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
and paying cash for in game bonuses was considered pay to win by the vast majority of the mmo community. Sure you had your gold buyers, and those who played pay to win games, but they by no means were the majority.
My question is with the coming of GW2, the cash for gems, and the ability to pay cash for bonuses, has the perception of these things changed?
Disclaimer
This is not a thread about is GW2 pay to win. No minds will be changed on either side of the argument. For the record and to preemtively answer those who will assume, I do not think GW2 is a pay to win game. You can not buy the [Flaming Sword of I Win!]. I do believe you can buy bonuses that can help you in game however.
I don't think it was ever frowned upon by a majority of people, maybe (but I still doubt it) a majority of vocal forum posters.
IMO it was only frowned upon publicly by a small percentage of people, publicly accepted by a small percentage of people, privately accetped by a small percentage of peoplle.
But the overwhelming majority just don't give a rats ass about it. I would be one of those. I truely/honestly do not care how you or other people play your game. Buy whatever flaming sword of power or just cosmetic item, or nothing you want, I will continue to play my way.
edit - the companies have now realized (actually the realized 6-7 years ago) that most just don't care and so began putting the cs in pretty much every game on the market. It still doesn't change how I or the majority play.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The only difference is it's safe, instead of buying from gold farmers you're buying from the company.
Also since this thread was clearly directed at GW2 (look who made it), if the game had a sub fee it would be 100% unacceptable. A cash shop that doesn't effect me is better than a sub fee.
Comments
The problem is not buy and use gems. But buy gems, trade for gold and buy gear.
I take issue with gold buying from outside sources, if it is illegal within the terms of a game user agreement. If the company supplying the game is selling the virtual coin or gems themselves it is up front and I have a choice whether to agree to that or not to bother.
The "illegal" source of gold buying is horrible and any human funding that is filth. My opinion on that has never and will never change even with the "times".
Well, no one can ever stop illegal gold buying. The best is to "legalize" it like what blizz did with Diablo 3.
Yeah it was "publically" frowned upon by the majority of the community and yet gold sellers were making massive profits anyway so that shoudl tell you that privately a lot of people were not frowning at all.If there was no to little demand then gold sellers and official cash shops would not exist.
The blame nickle and diming of games in today's market rests solely on today's consumers and not the companies who are just doing what they should be doing trying to maximize profits,it's up to consuemrs to tellt hem when they've gone to far.Past generations would have todl them so already for they valued th emoney they earned far more on a whole.Today we rationalize wasting our money and lack perspective outside our own wants and addictions.
I personally don;t like the whole box price+sub fee+Cash shop model that seems to be trending now but I knwo I'll be int he minority and will have to in the future either accept it or stop palying MMOs.Of course it'll be interesting to see how far they push the next step after this and th eoen after that becasue today's consumer won't stop them.
I think it comes down to how important gold is for the specific games.
Gold in GW2 isn't important, so I can care less if other people buy gold.
Gold in other mmorpg such as Atlantica Online is important. You can buy gear and upgrades with gold in that game.
So exact same system, completely different results.
I think it was frowned upon, because before the grand majority of games were confined within the games themselves; i.e. you had to obtain anything in the game you had to actually play the game. At some point, people got more and more used to using methods outside of the game to obtain things in the game and slowly it became accepted to do other things than playing the game to get stuff inside the game.
I blame the economy. Families are struggling to make ends meet, so they sell their jewelry and other prized possessions for pennies on the dollar to scammers and swindlers who resell them at huge profits. Not to mention, gold as a commodity is historically high in price, yet these companies still act like we're in the 90's in terms of what they will pay you.
Selling gold, rmah and CS is preety big factor to me when deciding if to play or not play. Freequently it is deciding one.
So I take it under consideration and I would choose 8/10 game without those over 9/10 with gold seeling, CS, etc anytime.
For some type of games like sandbox mmorpg CS, gold seeling or rmah woule even be automatic disqualify whole game for me.
Even in themepark it can be decisive though. I think my decision to leave Lotro after over a year of continuos playing was factored in 2/3 rds by cash shop and it's impact on a game, immersion ruin and my personal very subjective enjoyment.
I think the overall perception of paying money for pixels has become more widely accepted. Lets face it, resistance is futile. Even some single player games have cash shops and extra content you can pay for, rather than a standalone sequel or expansion. More and more, it will be the companies who develop the product who are the ones selling the pixels. This protects the buyer and lets the developers create the game with being able to keep a stable economy and still make a profit off pixels, at least in theory.
I still believe it cheapens the experience in most Online RPGs where players would be better off earning their rewards, but there are certain games where it makes sence, such as Second Life. Cash for gold or pixels will always be optional though, because even if players are forced to spend cash to succeed, people are never forced to play the game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
That is not necessarily true. As we know that in F2P games, a very small percentage of the player population (whales) pay for most of the game.
The same is probably true in gold trading: a small percentage of players spending a lot of money.
Personally, i don't frown upon it at all. Selling back my D3 stuff for cash is cool. It does not make a lot of money, but still .. it is fun to earn real money instead of just gold.
Since there are a lot of adult gamers who make their own living, they *are* earning their rewards, just not in the game.
Well, for me, i don't care.
In fact, a RMAH is slightly positive to me since i can sell my in-game stuff for cash. It is fun to turn my virtual stuff into real value (not a lot of money, granted .. but feel better than making some in-game gold).
And when i am quiting the game (since no game last forever), i can turn my vritual stuff back to money, and move on to the next game.
Not long before this feature is in EVERY game. I believe that will happen before it goes away. Welcome to a new way to make money for the big boys...
Not long ago it was frowned upon yet a lot of people did it anyways. They made a business out of it and it allowed them to purchase rare gear in game that actually affected the economy, crafting, and their own power.
Nowadays everything is failry easy to get and we can purchase lots of fluff stuff.
Which one is worse/better?
Games kill themselves when people get bored and leave.
If the game is good, people will tolerate a certain number of bugs and RMT activity. The oldest MMO out there ( Ultima Online ) allows RMT to occur, without participating in it themselves, and the game is still viable and running after 15 years. I don't really buy your idea that gold sellers destroy economies. I think players need to be able to participate in that same economy and know the game company is acting as an impartial protector of their assets. The obvious comparison here is real-world government. Governments with small-business friendly policies and who respect property rights will grow their economy. Governments who restrict economic participation to cabals and wave the "ban stick" end up like something from the middle ages. Same principles apply to virtual worlds. In fact, the moment gold sellers LEAVE your game, you should worry because you know if they smell death on the game they'll be the first to shift priorities.
It was frowned upon before Blizzard decided to up and give it a shot for some form of 'aesthetic' item. (Remember that shit? Community backlash should have been five hundred times worse than it had ever been. But it wasn't.)
And god forbid Blizzard -ever- does -anything- wrong in the eyes of their playerbase. It's not possible. So, because they decided that they could make even more money outside of subscription fees, they set the playerbase straight and told everyone that buying items for real currency was not bad, and not something to be frowned upon.
Case and point? D3's RMAH says 'Hello' as it pushes the RMT boundaries. If they had pulled a stunt like that 'back in the day', they'd be condemned to eternal damnation.
It is obviously now an accepted tradition in the gaming society.
I think there is a nuanced position to this.
A company can say its OK and then decline to participate themselves.
You have to make the player
1) secure in the belief that his assets are protected FROM the company's ban-stick, and
2) secure in the belief that the company isn't skewing the play experience to generate an artificial need for the benefits the company is selling.
IMO the game company should be like a government that protects the level playing field, protects commerce, protects property. At that point you might have a blooming virtual economy, IF the other aspects of the game are compelling and people want to play. Too many companies bungle this formula, and either whore their game out with a contrived pay-2-win conflict, or assert the worthlessness of player property by holding the ban stick above their head. BOTH aspects need to go away. Otherwise the level of investment a player puts into your virtual world goes only up to the point where they think "I'm bored, I can't justify the fee, and my account is worthless anyway." I maintained an active UO account for YEARS after I quit playing conventionally, and only because I knew in the back of my head, this thing is worth $140, or whatever.
Just to add to what I posted earlier...
It's a moral question. It's either right or wrong. You either are fine with it or not. But, all this flip flopping by companies with lame excuses just shows you they will wobble on any decision that might make them an extra buck. This cop out of "we can't stop them so we decided to do the selling ourself to make it safe for the customer" is a blatant lie and shows people without moral fortitude. The real problem is games are not coded with security in mind and they don't like to ban possible sources of income. The bottom line is their only motivation anymore. And the worst part is, they can't just admit that. So they continue to lie to players to try to seem on their side or earn sympathy while maintaining a hand in your pocket.
Yes i remeber how much people used to hate it but i guess people got used to it now. As far a GW2 is concerned Anet can do anything and will get a free pass from fans.
It is still frowned upon.
Its just some people have a natural inclination to be sheeple/fools. A natural trait of mankind.
Indeed, but a moral question with zero moral gravity. We're talking about revenue models in video games. No one is going to hell over this. I think it might be better classifiied as a gamesmanship issue, IF that. Obviously professional sportsmen buy top of the line equipment and training with their considerable revenue from sponsors, yet no one determines that they are "cheating". Ironically, I'm on your side. I prefer to see a subscription model where the role of the developer is to insure fair gameplay. I don't enjoy evaluating the necessity of a million micro-transactions WHILE I'm playing; let me decide up front what I'm in for, be that $15 for 30 days or whatever, and spend the rest of my time playing. But as far as it being a moral issue, I'm not so sure that has weight, unless you mean by that you feel "strongly" about certain types of games. That I agree with.
The whole "Selling in-game items for real life money is BAD" was started by the game companies not so much because they hated the idea of people selling in-game items for money, but because they were not getting their cut. They did not like the idea of in-game items having a value and people transacting outside their sphere of influence.
This was always a two-step process. Step one, push the whole person to person trading of items underground and turn it into a shady thing dominated by large conglomerates who cheat the people. Letting that sort of thing go on under their noses while going after any individual to individual sales HARD.
The next step is to take over the market themselves and sell power/gold in games themselves.
You see, if they did not get rid of the easy and not yet maligned person to person selling that happened in the early games -- back when it was perfectly legal to put dwarven workboots or a 113% bow on ebay and no real stigma was attached to it unless the person spammed it -- then no matter what they priced in game-gold and items at, someone would be willing to undercut it. They wanted the whole market -- the control -- and that can only happen when all competition is centralized into a few parties.
I voted yes, it has changed. It went from unauthorized third party transactions to a means for a publisher to monetize a game without subscription fee.
On the other side, I think GW2 has nothing to do with the change happening. It's not even released yet, and many other games already use cash shop sales as their primary revenue stream.
I don't think it was ever frowned upon by a majority of people, maybe (but I still doubt it) a majority of vocal forum posters.
IMO it was only frowned upon publicly by a small percentage of people, publicly accepted by a small percentage of people, privately accetped by a small percentage of peoplle.
But the overwhelming majority just don't give a rats ass about it. I would be one of those. I truely/honestly do not care how you or other people play your game. Buy whatever flaming sword of power or just cosmetic item, or nothing you want, I will continue to play my way.
edit - the companies have now realized (actually the realized 6-7 years ago) that most just don't care and so began putting the cs in pretty much every game on the market. It still doesn't change how I or the majority play.
This has always happened in MMOs.
This is nothing new.
The only difference is it's safe, instead of buying from gold farmers you're buying from the company.
Also since this thread was clearly directed at GW2 (look who made it), if the game had a sub fee it would be 100% unacceptable. A cash shop that doesn't effect me is better than a sub fee.