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

Reader Comments (197)

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 2:15AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The glib forum-warrior response to this is of course: Don't buy the stuff! It's not required! They're just vanity items! The point, though, is that for some gamers it is required."

Then those players should pay. Jeez, this isn't thermodynamics. Do you NEED champagne? Do you NEED halibut? No? So by the same token, just as water, soda, or beer are more than adequate substitutes for Cattier, and whiting, porgy, and tuna are likewise for halibut/mahi mahi/swordfish/marlin, if you want the top shelf stuff, you should have to pay for it. Is this new? Why isn't everyone driving a BMW or a Bentley or a Bugatti Veyron? Is it because they can't justify the additional expense? If you want the premium items (and 'premium' is defined by the developer, not the player), you pay for the premium items. There's nothing wrong with companies breaking out items for those willing to pay for them. If you NEED them (like an addict needs a fix), then you do what it takes to get it, whether it's raiding or reaching into the pocket.

I agree with fallwind. No one should ever expect a for-profit company to be satisfied with current profit levels. If they go too far with the profiteering, their consumer base will react in a way that tells them they were wrong. Then, they either correct or they wither and die over time. No one's making you buy additional stuff and just because you want it, doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

But by all means, lament how evil these companies are. While you're at it, go complain to State Fair organizers that make you pay to get in AND pay for food and games. Complain to cruise lines who promote themselves as 'all inclusive' vacations but force you to pay for everything you might want to do (you CAN eat in the dining room for no additional cost but anywhere else? Pull out your card key and get to charging).

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 3:45AM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

/facepalm

Comparing apples & oranges.

Bessides consumers just express their fellings that if game require subscription then it should not have item shop. Simple and consumers SHOULD EXPRESS what they want and DON'T FEEL BAD becasue of it. So sorry but I don't agree with you.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 5:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As long as cash shops don't have items that effect gamplay there is nothing wrong with them, Subs or FTP.

"The glib forum-warrior response to this is of course: Don't buy the stuff! It's not required! They're just vanity items! The point, though, is that for some gamers it is required.

In the same way that raiders think the world will end if they don't get the top parse, collectors, clothes horses, and completionists (completists?) strive to grab all the outfits, cosmetic items, mounts, and assorted doodads that make up the item tables in your average MMORPG. This is to say nothing of the roleplayers who actually use a lot of this stuff to individualize themselves or use as props for player-driven events and story arcs. Long story short, cosmetic items are gameplay-related and therefore necessary, regardless of whether they're high on your combat-centric list or not."

Cosmetic items are never required, players may want these items but it never a need.

Posted: Sep 1st 2011 12:16PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)
No part of the game is "needed." They don't -need- to let you into raids for free, either. They could just as easily charge for that. The arbitrary distinction right now is on cosmetic items, because most MMOs are combat-centric and it's the easiest to justify, but don't think that if they couldn't convince people that instances and certain boss fights are "extra" too that they wouldn't charge for them.

The people deciding what constitutes the "basic" game are the same people who want to charge for "extras." You're giving them permission to do that without a second thought, so keep that in mind if they start expanding the definition of "extra." They have no reason not to do it if people let them.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 9:02AM vampero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Great post!!!! What you said so so true!!! Money hungry Mother F******* aholes!!!

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 10:15AM PacketBurner said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh my 177 posts! thats cool, it was on page 3 when i last checked and the majority of commentors seem to agree with jeff. I must be honest and say that the subs put me off more than a cash shop but yes the double dipping (and more dedicating the staff to making "hats" when they should be fixing bugs) makes my enthusiasm wain.

There is a one shot of a dude in AOC with an invisible horse, could they have one less spangly armour set and maybe fix the invisible mount issue? thats where this really hurts the player imo; developers such as CCP are working on monocles and all sorts of financially rewarding features for them and not the community because of this mentality.

Well thats my list of mmo's i wanted to play (in 2010) gone down the pan, swtor i ran away from CE etc madness (we still don't have a sub price yet ... $30 anyone?) and secret world also goes by by.

Back to single player RPG's without the DLC for me. Oh no every game now has this money grabbing dlc approach, time to get the bowls out i guess :(

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 12:48PM HiroProtagonist7 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PacketBurner

A lot of the older but relatively recent RPGs, back before the devs turned their back on their communities and cut out the modders, have giant modding communities. Oblivion, TES, and Dark Messiah are three off the top of my head that have graphical improvements, mechanics fixes and added content contributed by the communities. I'm having fun with those now.

The modders were cut out to allow the sale of DLC.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 10:44AM Lensor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It is not only double dipping, it is triple dipping. Do not forget the box cost. And companies do this because they get away with it.

Consumers never ask what the markup is, as long as they are entertained. After all, "what is $15 and a couple of bucks in the store for a game I play 50 hours a month?!".

But that does not mean that the prize is fair. Most games are able to recoup development cost of box sales alone (this is what all console games and all non-MMO PC games do, even the crazy expensive ones). And no game will ever spend the entire $15 you pay per month at running the game (ask Blizzard how much of their sub costs have gone back into the game..). Bandwith and servers are just not that expensive ay more. Adding a cash shop on top of that is just greedy, even if the items are just cosmetic.

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 10:56AM heerobya said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Double dipping is wrong, plain and simple. Greedy.

Charge for your box/download, full price for initial purchase.

Then, either give us absolutely everything and I mean EVERYTHING with no strings attached for one monthly fee (subscription) OR do it piece by piece via a cash shop - buy only what you want, if anything.

The two can even co-exist in the same game, I don't care, but asking paying subscribers to pay even more via a cash shop (double dipping) is just bad, bad, bad, bad.

Posted: Aug 31st 2011 12:32PM Germaximus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I must have forgot about this or didnt read about it before.

I will definitely not be playing this game due to this.

I quit WoW after 6 years and part of that is because of the micro-transactions they kept tacking on.
A subscription based game having a cash shop makes me want to vomit all over their faces.

This is what has been pushing me back into single player games sadly. Good thing is i can play single player games on OnLive and still get a nice social feeling due to their Arena.

Posted: Sep 1st 2011 1:32PM Palebane said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think that ultimately the customer is always right. Businesses who strive to do the best for their customers will generally do better than those who don't care. If you create a good game with good features, you are going to make money. If you are just in it to make money, expect to go under.

With regards to choice, if games are going to have subs with cash shops, then every item in the cash shop should be able to be acquired in the game without the cash shop. Also, every item that can be acquired in the game should be available in the cash shop. That is real choice, but rarely the case either way.

Posted: Sep 3rd 2011 6:17PM GMickey001 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This downward spiral that online gaming, in general, has been in is just a sad state of affairs. First it was the pairing down of content and the slow painful death throes of true sandbox gaming (that last bit makes me saddest of all), then it was total mis-management of games that led to their early and untimely deaths, some not even shipped... Now, it seems that its the push for more money that will wound online gaming, maybe seriously.

For me, this is just the last in a long line of 'slaps in the face' that publishers/dev's have given me over the years in relation to online gaming as a whole. This year the largest major disappointment was Diablo 3, sad what they did with that game. Everything that Bliz possibly could have done to make me NOT want to play their game, they did. I was really looking forward to playing it. Most deffinately not now.
The Secret World looks to be a good game. Another that I was looking forward to playing this year. But this whole 'chasing the cash' gig that the gaming companies seem to be pushing for has me fed up. WoW started the whole thing way back when and I felt a little weird about their cash shop/subscription model then, but really couldnt put my finger on what 'felt wrong' about it then.
Well, now I know. It turns out their just making more and more money off of their playerbase; buying a new Lambourgini maybe???

But, I find my tolerance for being pushed about, or led by the nose, just so I can play a game is at an end. Sorry big gaming companies, Im not a money printing machine for you or anyone else; just for myself. lol You may be able to fool the younger crowd, but not me any longer. That old saw still applies "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Yeah, I was being suckered into the whole 'It costs soooo much more to make games now than it did', it does, lol but other costs have gone down at the same time too. I believe that the Sub's 'OR' F2P/CS 'OR' B2P/CS models are each sufficient for running a game; that is, maintaining AND progressing the game ie. expansions ect.

Looking around I find that my options are far less limited than I might have thought... There's the F2P games out there(tho Im not a huge fan), but many good and worth a look. There's always single player RPG's out there, but hard to play with my online friends unless they have a lan or multiplayer option on them. There's always my older games I have shelved that are screaming for a replay. lol
But of all these I think that the best options Ive seen out there are the Indy games Ive seen around. Small independant developers who havent really been touched by the 'corporate machine' yet and still remember what it was like just to be a gamer and love games and gaming in general....
Ahhh the good ole' days....(yeah Im an old guy) Back in the day, when electronic gaming was still in its infancy.... Game makers were inovators, pushing the limits of barely birthed technology (because the tech was only reaching the point to be able to make a 'game' as we know them today) to make an entertainment medium that, in many cases was based off of pen and paper RPG's....

LOL It may actually be time to dust off my old RPG books and take another look at what 'my' imagination can create too...

Peace all...

Oh, and sorry 'bout the book... lol End Rant... END LINE...

Posted: Sep 3rd 2011 7:06PM GMickey001 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@GMickey001
Oh, and I forgot about Torchlight 2 and Guild Wars 2 coming out. YAY for these games...
Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 3:28AM RaQin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sparkle Ponies are fine...and they show us who the kids are. Personally, I don't mind subscription based games having 'cash-shops' as long as they never sell game items the boost a players ability to cause damage, move faster in-game, craft better, or gain XP more quickly.

Any amount of flair/pets can be sold in a cash-shop, but the minute a weapon-set shows up, or an XP boosts appear, the game has essentially joined the F2P model...I won't pay a sub for a game like that, and you shouldn't either.

Posted: Sep 4th 2011 8:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hate cash shops that are pay to win, I have a demanding job and personal life, if a game has a nice cash shop I PAY TO CATCH UP, if I can pay to win it is no longer fun.


I also hate game that you are NEARLY REQUIRED to buy items... it just seems to unfair at that point. I buy alot of microtransaction crap, but only if the game is not pay to win or I have to buy said crap

Posted: Sep 5th 2011 4:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Money for nothing."
Isn't that called credit, and isn't that the basis for our modern consumer economy? Maybe your beef is the direction western capitalism has been heading since the 80's. I think what you're seeing happen in recent MMOs is called greed, and that's definitely not a new concept.

Posted: Oct 6th 2011 3:59PM ElitistRL said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People that have more money then time should have an option to spend that money on gear equivalent to what can be looted in end game raids. That would not be "pay2win", as the items are not better then looted items rendering the term inaccurate.

I find it extremely funny, that gaming may well be the only place in society where the less privileged feel they are owed an advantage over the more privileged. If we are paying the same subscription amount, why do you care that I spent my money on items to catch up to the items you were able to obtain by having less responsibilities and therefore more time to sit around gaming?

The only advantage one may have by purchasing the gear is obtaining it more quickly. This could be countered by not allowing the newly released raid gear to appear in the shop for a certain period of time. Make the gear expensive, $25, 50 or even $100 a gear slot.

Love hearing those with j.o.b.s (just over broke--say 75k a year or less) whining that others should not be able to use their resources to catch up for lack of time availability to sit at a computer, playing a game.

Featured Stories

PAX Prime 2014: Strife learns from the past

Posted on Sep 1st 2014 6:00PM

PAX Prime 2014: Hands-on with The Crew

Posted on Sep 1st 2014 3:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW