This has been a banner week for the microtransaction business model. If ever there was a doubt publishers are reconsidering the 'traditional' subscription model here in the US, this week has proven it. While SOE's announcement and rollout of value-added RMT to EverQuest and EverQuest II was the first announcement to hit the airwaves, it wasn't the biggest. EA threw its weight behind the model as well, half-way announcing their plans to support Star Wars: The Old Republic with microtransactions of some kind. Though the company attempted to retract the statement after the fact, it's hard to see how Mr. Riccitiello's original comment could be misconstrued. And, of course, we can't forget the rollout of Blizzard's character re-customization service. After years of value-added services like server transfers, the company has fully adopted the realm of cosmetic small-value charges.
Major announcements like this always prompt a strong response from the MMO community. For the strongest of those responses, look no further than the threads at Broken toys on the SOE and Star Wars announcements. For a strongly reactionary look at SOE's RMT decision, Keen and Graev's blog has you covered. Ryan Schwayder's Nerfbat site has a more considered look at the issue, primarily noting the polarizing nature of the topic. WorldIV talks about the possibly revolutionary nature of these revenue stream changes, while MMOCrunch notes the connections to the world of collectible card games. Both the Greenskin blog and The Ancient Gaming Noob offer their own opinions as well, and link into their discussions for further exploration. Whatever your own opinion, it's well worth reading into the blogging community's discussion of this eventful week.
Reader Comments (8)
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 7:33AM MrGutts said
This whole MT issue is going to be one of those things that people are split down the middle on, in the U.S., for the majority.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on it..
Me Personally I think MT's will be a good thing the way the U.S. economy is going (gone) into the crapper. It will give players move flexibility for paying.
I think we should give it a chance at least before we RAKE EA over the coals/tar/feathers/lashing with salt..
We are going to have to agree to disagree on it..
Me Personally I think MT's will be a good thing the way the U.S. economy is going (gone) into the crapper. It will give players move flexibility for paying.
I think we should give it a chance at least before we RAKE EA over the coals/tar/feathers/lashing with salt..
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 7:50AM Abriael said
MTs are ok when people aren't asked to pay a monthly fee. It's a very viable way to fund a game without burdenin g casual players (even if anyone that's little more than casual ends up often spending more than a monthly fee, the comparison with CCG isn't definately a wrong one.
It becomes MUCH less ok when they become a further way to milk players on top of the monthly fee, like WoW's appearence/gender changes and SOE's EQ's E-walmart. That's basically an excuse to make people pay additional money for content/services that should most definately be part of the monthly fee itself. Until now there has been a clear division between P2P games and F2P games, bastardizing the payment method definately isn't good for us cunsomers, expecially if it becomes widespread in the industry.
It becomes MUCH less ok when they become a further way to milk players on top of the monthly fee, like WoW's appearence/gender changes and SOE's EQ's E-walmart. That's basically an excuse to make people pay additional money for content/services that should most definately be part of the monthly fee itself. Until now there has been a clear division between P2P games and F2P games, bastardizing the payment method definately isn't good for us cunsomers, expecially if it becomes widespread in the industry.
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 10:42AM Tanek said
"like WoW's appearence/gender changes"
Why, exactly, should this be part of the monthly fee? I certainly don't see it as a necessary part of gameplay. If people think the cost is worth it for a bit of plastic surgery for their character, fine. If they think the cost is too high, still fine. But to say it should be part of the monthly fee is, I think, asking a little much.
As for SOE, I left EQ2 for reasons more related to them than to gameplay, so I'm not going to jump in to defend them. The items I have seen that they offer in this way don't seem gamebreaking yet, though. I'd have to see where they take it to really make a judgment.
Reply
Why, exactly, should this be part of the monthly fee? I certainly don't see it as a necessary part of gameplay. If people think the cost is worth it for a bit of plastic surgery for their character, fine. If they think the cost is too high, still fine. But to say it should be part of the monthly fee is, I think, asking a little much.
As for SOE, I left EQ2 for reasons more related to them than to gameplay, so I'm not going to jump in to defend them. The items I have seen that they offer in this way don't seem gamebreaking yet, though. I'd have to see where they take it to really make a judgment.
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 8:12AM (Unverified) said
with exception to Server Transfers and Name changes,
I dont think Cash transactions belong in Pay to Play games
should be able to use only ingame cash, quests, special events to get fluff items or ingame perks
I dont think Cash transactions belong in Pay to Play games
should be able to use only ingame cash, quests, special events to get fluff items or ingame perks
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 8:36AM Ves said
Don't forget Home
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 10:38AM (Unverified) said
God, I wish people would stop using terms like "milk" and "force" to talk about selling a few cash shop items.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
No one is taking away anything.
They are selling fluffy fun items that, like any other item in any other game, has no affect on anyone BUT the player that buys them or uses them.
No cash shop has ever sold the LEETEST of the phat lewt in their cash shop.
People that are upset about this have no idea what they are talking about, have never USED a cash shop or have never experienced a cash shop.
The only controversy here stems from some people getting upset over fluff pets and XP pots. There is nothing more to it.
No one is going to cancel their subs over this..if they do they were just waiting for a reason.
The games are not going to lose anything over this, subs OR cash...actually they will make MORE money.
I wonder how someone deals with real life that has issues with this.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
No one is taking away anything.
They are selling fluffy fun items that, like any other item in any other game, has no affect on anyone BUT the player that buys them or uses them.
No cash shop has ever sold the LEETEST of the phat lewt in their cash shop.
People that are upset about this have no idea what they are talking about, have never USED a cash shop or have never experienced a cash shop.
The only controversy here stems from some people getting upset over fluff pets and XP pots. There is nothing more to it.
No one is going to cancel their subs over this..if they do they were just waiting for a reason.
The games are not going to lose anything over this, subs OR cash...actually they will make MORE money.
I wonder how someone deals with real life that has issues with this.
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 12:05PM (Unverified) said
I'm not against it, depending on *>how
Posted: Dec 12th 2008 12:45PM (Unverified) said
My main concern is not where things stand today but where they are heading. If they find they can get people to pay for fluff items then they will have no reason to include them as part of the $14.95 a month we already pay.
So the value of the game drops as all new weapons and armor suddenly look basicly the same. But hey spend $1 per item to make them look good. Just don't think about how in the past games were expected to make new weapons and armor look better then old ones and not charge you more.
And lets face it once they realize they can make money off fluff items its only a small step to selling items that give you small bonuses. Then from there to bigger bonuses then from there to better items.
Before you know it in order to compete you will be required to pay your $14.95 a month and spend $20 a month in what once was fluff.
Don't believe it can happen? Look at what we put up with from cell phone companys. They will milk us for every dime they can get, and if we want to stop it we have to act now while these ideas are young.
So the value of the game drops as all new weapons and armor suddenly look basicly the same. But hey spend $1 per item to make them look good. Just don't think about how in the past games were expected to make new weapons and armor look better then old ones and not charge you more.
And lets face it once they realize they can make money off fluff items its only a small step to selling items that give you small bonuses. Then from there to bigger bonuses then from there to better items.
Before you know it in order to compete you will be required to pay your $14.95 a month and spend $20 a month in what once was fluff.
Don't believe it can happen? Look at what we put up with from cell phone companys. They will milk us for every dime they can get, and if we want to stop it we have to act now while these ideas are young.







