The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- WoW loses another 100,000 subscribers 151 comments
- The Daily Grind: What's the highest sub fee you'd pay? 85 comments
- Earthrise shutting down today 69 comments
- BioWare kicks off Star Wars: The Old Republic Q&A Fridays 69 comments
- Star Trek Online unpacks Cardassian mystery boxes 60 comments
Massively Speaking Podcast
Massively Speaking Episode 185: Bree-to-play
Latest episode: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012



Reader Comments (6)
Posted: Jul 31st 2009 4:31PM (Unverified) said
The flaw in this logic is - Why should I not get it, if I do want it? Why should someone willing to pay xtra cash, get something I have to for?
If I want it, and feel I deserve it b/c I'm already paying for it's creation and anything additional that comes along down the pipeline through my box & sub purchase?
It's Sub + MT. It's nickel and diming. It's "Cake-Cutting" fees. It's a "gas and travel surcharge". It's bullshit and unacceptable to me. It's limiting the creative nature of the player, by the amount of money they'll fork over. And if it was the ONLY pricing model they used, I'd be cool with it. But, it's not.
XBL and the "added content" is completely different. Your XBL account is MS saying "you can play online and use the online services to game". Added content is another completely separate company saying "here, more for the game you purchased". Cryptic is doing both, under one roof.
It's bullshit, and it's manipulative, and NO consumer should allow it.
But, that's how I feel about it, and I'll make my stand by not purchasing the game. Period. Rather then partake in their wallet-rape masquerade, I'll just never EVER sub to it, and say GFY.
Then again, I openly admit, that if TOR is under this model, I'll swallow my pride and accept it. But that’s a game I'm totally excited for. I’ll still be disappointed they do, but it’s vastly superior in what it’ll offer over CO, IMO. CO is niche, at best, and will piss their limited customer base away w/ this bullshit. Just like CoH already has. So essentially - Fuck them.
I'm not familiar w/ WoW (beyond a few trial runs), so I can't comment about its services.
Posted: Jul 31st 2009 8:24PM Existentialist said
I will not play champions because it is MicroTransaction based. Now if it were free to play and I didn't have to buy it and it was microtransactions, I would play it and buy nothing.
Now here is the hard part, Spore and Bioshock were both games I really wanted to play. TOR is a game I really want to play, but if they have this same model, where I have to pay extra for a new color to my lightsaber or for my guild's custom decal on my armor...I won't buy it. I can soapbox all I want about customer rights, but if no one stands up for themselves there are no customer rights.
So here is my contribution - I won't pay.
Posted: Jul 31st 2009 9:42PM BIZKeT said
Posted: Aug 1st 2009 3:00AM CyberNigma said
Well guess what, microtransactions (done right) ARE a consumers rights issue. It allows those of us that actually have jobs or other obligations but still enjoy playing games a chance to pay catch up. The reason microtransactions are so unpopular over here aren't because of how they've been botched up previously, but because there's some shitty sense of entitlement for those people that can play 16 hours a day - an entitlement that since they grind the most time out of a game they should have the best stuff. That's like letting a sports team play on the field when their opponents have to take a break.
BBS games solved the problem - everyone had X turns or X minutes to play per day. Nobody could sit there and play all day while other people were at work. If you want only a subscription model, fine, I say go China's route on that and stop loot and XP gain after X hours so that you can't brute force the game while other players have to take care of ife obligations. THEN it would be fair. Until then, micro-transactions that offer in-game items (whether they affect the game or not) that are ALSO available over time by playing the game do not give an advantage - they BALANCE the game between the poor saps that have nothing else to do but pay all day with those of us that actually don't get to play all day..
whine whine whine... Micro-transactions are coming whether these people like them or not. They may refuse to buy the games but I suspect they'll just be replaced by as many (if not more) people that are willing to pay by the new rules. As long as you can get everything by playing the game as you can by micro-transactions then there should not be any issue whatsoever. Having 16 hours a day to play a game does not entitle you to jack shit, just as having a surplus of cash doesn't entitle those people to jack shit.
I think the best items for micro-transaction purchase are XP boosters. If nothing but XP or Reputation boosters were in these stores then that would be enough by itself to provide a balance between the haves and have-nots (haves being those with time and have-nots being those without time). I really never want to see end-game items in an item store, nor do I want to see end-game items require massive amounts of time to get. They should be had by regular pay or (preferably) skill. It's just getting to the end-game items that usually is not balanced.
I think we're transitioning just as we transitioned away from time-restricted games in the past. This is the future. Some companies will abuse it, others will do it right. I still think time-restrictions by character in an online game are the best way to balance the games, but not too people would really accept that nowadays being spoiled with a play-all-you-can buffet they've been given with the subscription system.
Posted: Aug 1st 2009 3:03AM CyberNigma said
Posted: Aug 1st 2009 3:25AM (Unverified) said