| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (13)

Posted: Feb 6th 2009 9:12PM Mr Angry said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hahahah Smed was very quick to make sure that he maintained they would stick to the subscription model AND micro-transactions, greedy bastard, using resources diverted directly from subscriptions to fund his pet project and withhold the most attractive assets and designs from subscribers. Would be so bad if they fixed a few bugs each month, but no, more card game expansions and RMT...

DCUO was just hit for 9000 points of douchbaggery too...

Posted: Feb 6th 2009 9:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well the decision to turn EQ into a micro transaction game made me cancel my seven years in the game.The higher ups at Sony should lay Smedley off during the next round of layoffs.He is so far removed from the playerbase it's not even funny.

Posted: Feb 6th 2009 11:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I cancelled every SoE sub I had when the RMT stuff came in. The card game was bad enough. It's a shame. Vanguard is supposed to be having some sort of Reniassance, but I'll never see it now. Smed, you need to step down. You don't have a clue and you're going to KILL SoE with this garbage.

Hell I was looking forward to MMOs on my PS3, but I just put it up on Ebay. Screw Sony.

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 12:39AM venekor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Who cares at this point? MT Is the least of your worries when playing an SOE game.

All their mmorpgs have been slowly ruined over the years, apart from MxO, PotBS and Vanguard which started off crap anyways.

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 2:07AM cray said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think SOE needs to offer one subscription deal for all their games. $35 a month to play ANY SOE game would extremely enticing.

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 8:03AM Drexel said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Typical SOE "trailblazing". They were the first to suck more money out of our pockets with SWG and it's "groundbreaking" $15 a month sub when $10 was the norm (although this change was arguably coming anyway as production costs continued to increase).

When I started hearing the chatter of RMT coming to the NA market and sticking around this time this is exactly the way I was afraid it would turn out. They won't drop their current sub models they will just increase the cost to the end-user (i.e. you and I) and increase their profits. A pure RMT model from a reputable company could succeed and may even be embraced in the western market. Unfortunately I think we will be stuck with this hybrid business model where the developers try to get the best of both worlds at our expense.

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 10:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Did any of you actually read the interview? Smedley seems to be very much in touch with player concerns' about RMT, about, for instance, the perception of diverting subscription based development resources to RMT content and selling "power" versus convenience. If you are categorically against "microtransactions" - why hello there iTunes and Xbox DLC - then vote with your wallet and abstain; but don't begrudge the millions of gamers, and even more in the untapped mainstream market, for whom this type of payment plan is more amenable.

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 11:22AM thecheesypoofs said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Buying from iTunes or DLC doesn't make me better then other players.

And I don't see how buying music/videos/music videos from iTunes/Amazon/Virgin/Walmart is anywhere related to RMT. Maybe even buying groceries, cars, PCs is RMT then ?

Buying from RMT is a clear way to get better loot or easier loot so clear difference between a player that engages in RMT and one that doesn't. Ask Hellgate London how it went for them.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/05/11/

From the same interview you read : "We're trying to hold the line about not selling 'power', but what form that takes in DCUO remains to be seen"

Trying ... not "we will not"
Remains to be seen ... not "it will not be done"

If it's costume or things like that, I totally agree with you. If it's customization, then it's a path to divide crafters to be "Better" then others (having something other crafters can't have if they don't pay - but if it can't be traded, then it's ok).

And let's be honest here, SOE has the worst reputation from being out of touch with players/client. Besides the original EQ success, I don't see many good things from them on the news/products.

Only way I see it being ok (for me anyway) is if they make a server RMT and regular servers like they're doing now for EQ/EQII. Personally, I can't stand RMT. Like I said, if it's for a different horse/costume/charcter customization, fine, let the kiddies burn their parents money on it.

If they're gonna go that way, then drop the dumbest fixed price every MMO goes for of 15.00$ for monthly fees (totally other subject and not directly related to the interview but had to put my 2 cents there).

And for Smedley being very much in touch with players ...

No comment on that.
Reply

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 11:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The iTunes and DLC analogy was supposed to elucidate that some people who are adamantly against RMT based MMOs are willing to pay for entertainment experiences (and "enhancements" in the latter case) on an a la carte basis.

As Smedley repeatedly points out in the interview, he doesn't want to sell things that are in fact or are percieved to be "power" in a classic MMO. So why is he only "trying" to do that in DCUO's case? Perhaps because the game is still in pre-alpha and they are trying to figure out how best to monetize these things. No one has written a rubric for how Western MMOs should do RMT. There is no Club Penguin for the core market yet and so I interpret "trying" to reflect their attempts to define what is appropriate.

I didn't mean to imply that Smedley was in touch with gamers beyond what he says in this interview. I've never paid for an SOE game - though I closely followed and beta tested SWG and Planetside - so I am not familiar with his history among SOE fans. Yet he seems to recognize the relevant concerns around RMT even if he wasn't as diplomatic when SOE introduced it to EQ2 a couple months ago.

I will take a wait and see approach and I am looking forward to games like Free Realms and The Agency.

Posted: Feb 8th 2009 10:23AM Lateris said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am just not interested in the design ideas that come forth from SOE for MMORPG's. I prefer better games. I also just don't care for SOE's business model from a customers perspective.

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 12:59PM TheJackman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If I was playing EQ now I was quitting over this!"

Posted: Feb 7th 2009 7:17PM ultimateq said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can certainly live without micro transactions in my SoE games. If I am paying $15/mo + expansions, it is pretty selfish of the company to want more.

While it is irritating and unnecessary, it won't cause me to leave my game.

If you could buy completed epics or really anything useful, that would certainly make me leave. But really all they are offering is toys and potions. Yes potions are useful, don't misunderstand me. But it doesn't bother me. So "Johny Spoiled-Brat" wants to level faster, so he gets mommy and daddy to buy $200 worth of exp potions. It doesn't really affect me.

Posted: Apr 4th 2009 10:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I know this is a couple of months old but i'll just leave this right here:

"We have no plans what so ever to do actual sales of in game items, and I'm personally very opposed to the idea for EverQuest, I think microtransations can be a valid business model if planned from the ground up for a game, but it would be very very bad for EQ." J.S.

...and yet he turn around and does it anyways, there is no longer any reason to trust Smed nor is there any reason to continue to do business with SoE.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW