| 132 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by Samuraisword RMT = microtransactions Both require spending real money for an ingame virtual feature or advantage. How is that not Real Money Trading? Smedley is a bullshit con artist liar. Believing his twisted definition is like believing this guy's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related from Wiki: [edit] In MMORPGs RMT is an abbreviation for: According to standard conceptions of economic value (see the subjective theory of value), the goods and services of virtual economies do have a demonstrable value. Since players of these games are willing to substitute real economic resources of time and money (monthly fees) in exchange for these resources, by definition they have demonstrated utility to the user.
Ok, but what bloodworth is saying is that typically, people use the term rmt when it comes to buying resources for a game with real money that are not condoned by the game maker. Whereas Micro transactions ARE condoned by the gamemaker and the game is designed with that in mind or the microtransactions are used to enhanced what is aleady there. So in the minds of many players they are not the same, at least in spirit. Going to "free to play asian game #511" and using the cash shop is not against the EULA. Going to some secondary website and purchasing gold and powerlevels for any game that indicates they don't want you to do this IS against the EULA. And as far as the gentleman who indicated that climbing MT. Washington was not the same as getting to the end game of a MMORPG, well that really is point of view. OF COURSE it's not the same thing. But the inherrant value is quite subjective. I know numerous people who feel that actually climbing Mt. Washington (or any mountain for that matter) is a complete waste of time. Regardless of the physicality involved. Just like most people out there in the non-gaming world would believe that getting to end-game (or even just playing any online game) is also a big waste of time. That's sort of the point. It's all a big waste of time if viewed in the proper light. do you collect Hummels? Have every single one of them from "Accordian Boy" to "Zealous Xylophonist"? Well that's a big waste of time. And it takes no imagnation, physicality or skill to collect them. Just some money and staying on top of the releases. But collecting all of them IS an accomplishment to some. There is a huge following for that stuff . So just because someone doesn't value it doesn't mean that it isn't an accomplishment or doesn't have inherrant value to someone else. Oh, and I thought this was funny... "To me, saying you hit level 75 in Lineage 2 is the same as saying you watched all 3 Lord of the rings movies in a row." Besides the fact that I got to lvl 78 in L2 before I quit (with subclass) my friends and I do watch all of the Lord of the rings movies in a row. We have a once per year thing that we go up to Maine and do this. Just done a few times of course. The funny thing is that we have friends who think we are nuts and don't think one should subject themselves to such a grueling task. Of course, we don't really think of this as a major accomplishment but in some ways it is an accomplishment as not everyone is willing to or sees the reason to do this.
|
|
Originally posted by Sovrath RMT = microtransactions Both require spending real money for an ingame virtual feature or advantage. How is that not Real Money Trading? Smedley is a bullshit con artist liar. Believing his twisted definition is like believing this guy's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related from Wiki: [edit] In MMORPGs RMT is an abbreviation for: According to standard conceptions of economic value (see the subjective theory of value), the goods and services of virtual economies do have a demonstrable value. Since players of these games are willing to substitute real economic resources of time and money (monthly fees) in exchange for these resources, by definition they have demonstrated utility to the user.
Ok, but what bloodworth is saying is that typically, people use the term rmt when it comes to buying resources for a game with real money that are not condoned by the game maker. Whereas Micro transactions ARE condoned by the gamemaker and the game is designed with that in mind or the microtransactions are used to enhanced what is aleady there. So in the minds of many players they are not the same, at least in spirit. Going to "free to play asian game #511" and using the cash shop is not against the EULA. Going to some secondary website and purchasing gold and powerlevels for any game that indicates they don't want you to do this IS against the EULA. And as far as the gentleman who indicated that climbing MT. Washington was not the same as getting to the end game of a MMORPG, well that really is point of view. OF COURSE it's not the same thing. But the inherrant value is quite subjective. I know numerous people who feel that actually climbing Mt. Washington (or any mountain for that matter) is a complete waste of time. Regardless of the physicality involved. Just like most people out there in the non-gaming world would believe that getting to end-game (or even just playing any online game) is also a big waste of time. That's sort of the point. It's all a big waste of time if viewed in the proper light. do you collect Hummels? Have every single one of them from "Accordian Boy" to "Zealous Xylophonist"? Well that's a big waste of time. And it takes no imagnation, physicality or skill to collect them. Just some money and staying on top of the releases. But collecting all of them IS an accomplishment to some. There is a huge following for that stuff . So just because someone doesn't value it doesn't mean that it isn't an accomplishment or doesn't have inherrant value to someone else. Oh, and I thought this was funny... "To me, saying you hit level 75 in Lineage 2 is the same as saying you watched all 3 Lord of the rings movies in a row." Besides the fact that I got to lvl 78 in L2 before I quit (with subclass) my friends and I do watch all of the Lord of the rings movies in a row. We have a once per year thing that we go up to Maine and do this. Just done a few times of course. The funny thing is that we have friends who think we are nuts and don't think one should subject themselves to such a grueling task. Of course, we don't really think of this as a major accomplishment but in some ways it is an accomplishment as not everyone is willing to or sees the reason to do this.
theatrical release or directors cut? inquiring mind(s) want(s) to know.... "We aren't going to ... Period. End of statement." ya. ok. whatever. but what do i know, i'm only a vanbois i'm told. |
|
|
This thread has been frustrating to follow. The first thing that I have to mention is that the people who are for micro-transactions are the ones using them; all of their opinions must be taken with a grain of salt. With that said, the people who are being reasonable and are suggesting that the play-styles of future games change to allow more players to experience the content that they are paying for have a more valid point. The biggest misconception in the arguments that are being thrown back and forth is that every gamer is playing games for the same reason. Some are paying to experience a story, some are paying to have a competitive environment in which there is one (hopefully balanced) ruleset, some are paying to give them a sense of accomplishment, some are paying to be challanged and other are paying for a slew of other reasons or a mixture of the others mentioned. What is CRITICAL is that the argument here should not be about whose playstyle is better or more appropriate because that is subjective. The important question is, should developers, after they have received money from their playerbase, augment the game so as to change the expectations of the gamers who have already payed money for it. That is the critical issue. You can have a game where EVERYBODY agrees to pay real money for items. You can have a game where EVERYBODY has to spend time to get their items. You can have a game where EVERYBODY can teleport to every room and experience all the content. You can have a game where EVERYBODY has to struggle to achieve their goals. All of these playstyles are valid but the critical point is that every player of the game knows the defined ruleset that EVERYBODY is bound by. That initial contract should never change. On a different note, while I agree with the V-for-Vendetta guy on some of his views it is also important to realize that he is extremely cynical. In rare cases to the point of unreasonableness. While I do not like some of the money schemes that Blizzard has recently announced (ie: Starcraft single-campaign releases and the proposed diablo 3 battle.net price tag) I do not believe Blizzard would go to the point of breaking the initial contract with its users of not using micro-transactions to give players an edge over others in game. To a degree, some sort of limitation has to be put on giving players some of the features that they desire (ie: server transfers, character re-customizations) for the sake of keeping a persistent game world for other users. Whether that limitation should be money or not is certainly a reasonable argument. |
|
Originally posted by ursin theatrical release or directors cut? inquiring mind(s) want(s) to know....
Director's Cut. To Accountsiggy; Though I disagree with your assertion that those who are arguing for micro-transactions are those using them (I can argue for them but have yet to play a game that uses micro-transactions - also keep in mind that those who argue against them would never use them and their opinions would have to be taken with a grain of salt as well) I can aggree with your questions as to whether or not a game company, after taking a customer's money should change the premise of the game by incorporating micro-transactions. And my initial thought is "no", "No" they shouldn't. But there is a caveat to that. I also think that adding micro-transactions for cosmetic items is perfectly fine (or house items or dumb pets) as long as there are items of equal qualtiy available to players who don't want to spend money. However, the game companies do leave themselves a bit of an "out". In many EULA's they state that the online gameplay can change anytime and that they reserve the right to make any changes they see fit. And I am a big believer in "if you sign it you should agree so don't sign it if you don't". So they can make changes if they want. Whether or not the players will put up with it is another thing. Game companies need to realize that Gamers are fickle, vindictive and whiny people
|
|
Originally posted by Sovrath
I would agree with the assertion that 'we can change it, and you signed it' but i would also hope they would have the decency/courtesy to not say they won't first.
like i said before, that is MY main concern regarding this implementation. "We aren't going to ... Period. End of statement." ya. ok. whatever. but what do i know, i'm only a vanbois i'm told. |
|
|
As an example. I want to make a good movie with a great story that people will love to see. Ofcourse such a great movie will have a beutiful hero and heroin. They will participate in a tasteful awsome sex scene (cause thats something that will sell a film), I mean something like that Michael Douglas film with whats-her-name, the woman where you could see everything on a published picture. The problem is.... to get this sex scene and to get that information, that comment they make right after, the comment that awakens the hero and becomes very important to understand the rest of the movie. You, the viewer has to pay extra for that. Thats micropayments, and thats why people dont like it. |
|
Originally posted by Mitara
I would agree with this, players have no clue what to expect either anymore. You are just thrown into an environment where the designer can charge for anything they want. Players are confused, they are unwillling to participate in a scheme where they have lost control over their game. There is also some sense of betrayal for EQ/EQ2 players in the sense that we started this game as P2P, there would never be RMT, a few weeks after everyone has bought the expansion they adjust the EULA on us, and start RMT the next day withoug warning. I also don't think that if you don't like F2P that you have something against it. I don't care if someone like F2P, I applaud them they manage to have fun with F2P, but I do not like it myself unless it is obvious from the start what kind of system it is and I much rather pay one sum monthly and know what I get than having no clue what I will need to spend to enjoy the game. |
|
|
Cabe2323
 Novice Member
Joined: 8/03/06
The nine most terrifying words are: I''m from the government and I''m here to help. -Reagan |
I am done with this arguement. Obviously people see things differently. You guys don't see this as a game. You see it as some type of competition/sport. Well enjoy your competition/sport but realize that the vast majority of players see it as a "GAME" and just want to have a good time. They could care less if their sword is an Uber +9 fire sword of hotness or a +1 fire sword of hotness as long as they can enjoy the entire game.
That is the problem with MMO games currently. They are a form of segregation. Sure we have the "Power Gamers with lots of time" who get to enjoy all of the content. Then we have the more casual players who do not get to enjoy all of the content. They are supposedly separate but equal. Yeah we know how well that works out. Developers have two choices (especially as more and more of their subscribers get older and have less time) they either take the WoW approach (make content easier to do) or they allow RMT to have players catch up and experience content they haven't been able to in the past. Honestly neither is a great solution but one of those paths is going to continue to be the future. The days of guild's controling a 24 spawn camp for the best loot are long gone. Currently playing: Looking Foward too: |
|
You are right on. I work hard to make money in RL. Thus I dont have time to make uber toons in game. Letting me trade RL money to make a toon uber is a good way to achieve balance. Where you go wrong is when the only way to get uber stuff is through cash shops. |
|
Originally posted by ursin
I would agree with the assertion that 'we can change it, and you signed it' but i would also hope they would have the decency/courtesy to not say they won't first.
like i said before, that is MY main concern regarding this implementation.
But that's the thing, they won't every have decency/courtesy as most game companies run like a business. The problem is that players, especially players who lurk/participate on forums, want so much in their heart of hearts for these games to somehow be above the pettiness of man made conventions. But the reality is that all that these games are, all the design, the implementation, all that brings them forth are just that. A contrivance of man. man is imperfect and is subject to all that imperfection will bring. These games are run as a business and have to be in order to satisfy a lot of expectations. Whether it's the employees or stock holders or the reatlity that bills have to be paid. Perhaps if there is a small indy company that doesn't care about money, you will find a game that "might" flourish, but that's another discussion and one that would not be short. As for the gentleman who makes the assertion that these games are more than game but competitions, well, that's the beauty of it. People play for their own reasons. I will never believe that one reason is better than another. If one persone wants to sit out in the wilderness and tell stories around campfires, then more power to him. If another wants to drive their character to the heights of all that he game world has to offer then more power to him. My only thought is that if micro-transactions allow for a disparity in actual gameplay then there will be great issues. It's almost (but not quite ) similiar to legal dispensations to the rich. However, I maintain my assertion that anything that changes the game cosmetically, as long as equal quality items are available through normal gameplay, is not a threat to the game if obtained through micro-transactions. |
|
Originally posted by Sovrath
But that's the thing, they won't every have decency/courtesy as most game companies run like a business. The problem is that players, especially players who lurk/participate on forums, want so much in their heart of hearts for these games to somehow be above the pettiness of man made conventions. But the reality is that all that these games are, all the design, the implementation, all that brings them forth are just that. A contrivance of man. man is imperfect and is subject to all that imperfection will bring. These games are run as a business and have to be in order to satisfy a lot of expectations. Whether it's the employees or stock holders or the reatlity that bills have to be paid. again, agreed, but a business that relies on both up front income (boxes) and consistent steady income (subs) can't say X and do Y and hope to continue their cash flow (continued business). I am resigned to the reality that will be company controlled RMT being a factor in the games that i play in the future. but i don't want those games to come out with 'we will NEVER do that on X,Y,Z servers so those that don't want to be impacted can play there.' and turn around and say 'oh, changed our minds' especially after convincing me to anti up another up front cost (expansion) just prior to the fundamental shift in game structure with no warning or discussion. and if i went to McDonalds to buy a Big Mac and i ate at McDonalds regularly, and one day they gave me a tofu burger and still called it a Big Mac i would be
and i've gained 2 adventuring levels and 1 tradeskill level in EQII while following this thread "We aren't going to ... Period. End of statement." ya. ok. whatever. but what do i know, i'm only a vanbois i'm told. |
|
Originally posted by Samuraisword
I'm sure using your mouse while hitting keys 123 for 4 hours a day must have been a major accomplishment, right?
So people who play cards online for money have no skill also according to your logic. They just sit on their butts and mash buttons. It must be pure luck that some win and others lose? Remove money from the equation and the examples are the same. To be successful in a MMOG requires commitment and intelligence, perhaps social skills as well. A card game requires tactics, depending on the card game you play. With MMO's, this is not the case. Anybody can play it and if you find playing an MMO "challenging" then I truly fear for your capabilities as I can teach a monkey to play nearly every mmorpg and do well. Well with the possible exception of EVE as its going to take a long time to leanr him to get around the UI. |
|
|
It brings down the bar. Already in MMO’s you don’t need to group to level. Soon you wont need to raid to get the best items. Why are you playing? |
|
|
I hate microtransactions & hopefully will always be able to avoid games that contain them. I can remember an interview with one of the senior SOE staff a while ago where he openly admitted that he liked the idea of people accidentally spending far more money than they intended but not realising it until the end of the month when the credit card bill came in. Why settle for just a monthly subscription he said, when we can make far more money by getting people to spend five times that in microtransactions. This is precisely the sort of twisted greedy thinking that lead to the current financial crisis. The problem is though that it only takes a minority to agree go along with it for a game to be ruined for everyone else. If this stuff ever manages to permeate everything, then MMOs truly will be dead. Just my opinion. If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"? |
|
|
ronan32
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 8/19/05
I will never play an mmorpg with Microtransactions |
It defeats the whole purpose of the game if you can just buy the items with real money. I for one will never play an mmo with microtransactions. its not about making a good mmo its about making good money. Of course soe would be one of the first western companies to introduce this business model, because they are a money hungry stagnating company. we should all stick to the indy mmo's, thats where the real games are. |
|
vesavius
 Advanced Member
Joined: 3/08/04
''Get me a beer and money sandwhich. Hold the bread.'' - DR & Quinch |
Originally posted by Cabe2323
|
|
vesavius
Advanced Member
Joined: 3/08/04
''Get me a beer and money sandwhich. Hold the bread.'' - DR & Quinch |
Originally posted by Sovrath
You see, it isnt about 'not caring about money'... All companies have to care about money. I accept that. They have to make profit. Noone here is arguing that they shouldnt. But there is also ethics and integrity.... What we are seeing here is an insidious and underhand revenue model being snuck in that is fundementally designed to exploit the user. Were the players of EQ asked whether they wanted this? No. I am left with a month on a 3 month sub for a product that isnt what I bought, and will never now play. If I had known I would not have purchased this 3 month sub, but Smed lied. RMT/ MT fundamentally change the nature of a game, to the point where it is no longer a game.
|
Originally posted by vesavius
You see, it isnt about 'not caring about money'... All companies have to care about money. I accept that. They have to make profit. Noone here is arguing that they shouldnt. But there is also ethics and integrity.... What we are seeing here is an insidious and underhand revenue model being snuck in that is fundementally designed to exploit the user. Were the players of EQ asked whether they wanted this? No. I am left with a month on a 3 month sub for a product that isnt what I bought, and will never now play. If I had known I would not have purchased this 3 month sub, but Smed lied. RMT/ MT fundamentally change the nature of a game, to the point where it is no longer a game.
Is it insidious? It's my understanding that in other countries this was common. So is it insidious or another way to make money, a different way. It's a tough one because I rather see it like the gambling industry. They make it very easy for people to participate but in the end the free drinks, cheap rooms and entertainment are really all there so that people will stay and gamble. That's a bit cynical but that has always been my feeling with the Asian free to play games. But is it possible to have a game that has microtransactions and can still be a decent game. And again, people have sort of already voted with their wallet as many people take advantage of the secondary market. why would game companies NOT give players what they have already proven that they wanted. Which of course begs the question, which group is larger, those that want it or don't care and those that don't? |
|
Originally posted by Sovrath
Is it insidious? It's my understanding that in other countries this was common. So is it insidious or another way to make money, a different way. It's a tough one because I rather see it like the gambling industry. They make it very easy for people to participate but in the end the free drinks, cheap rooms and entertainment are really all there so that people will stay and gamble. That's a bit cynical but that has always been my feeling with the Asian free to play games. But is it possible to have a game that has microtransactions and can still be a decent game. And again, people have sort of already voted with their wallet as many people take advantage of the secondary market. why would game companies NOT give players what they have already proven that they wanted. Which of course begs the question, which group is larger, those that want it or don't care and those that don't?
The insidious part, saying we won't and then doing it. bold faced out and out blatant lying. and structuring it so they ... not announce..... not discuss..... launch it right after an expansion goes gold.
the vast majority of microtransaction games are (or is that were? lol) F2P not P2P, that is also a difference....... can a good game have microtransactions in it... or rather... can a game with microtransactions in it be a good one. probably. but in the case of EQII it's not the game i signed up for, and it's not really the game i want to be playing.
but i will... for a while longer anyway. "We aren't going to ... Period. End of statement." ya. ok. whatever. but what do i know, i'm only a vanbois i'm told. |
|
Originally posted by dawgmmo
Why play the game then? You need to step back and take a look at what you just said. These are games after all. If you don't have enough time to play a game then go to a game that caters to your playstyle. There are plenty of MMORPGs now that do just that. No playstyle is wrong but it is ridiculous to play a game and pay more because you don't have time to play it. That is like buying a long movie but you don't have enough time to watch it so you pay someone to condense it down into a shorter version, missing alot of the movie. Does that sounds smart to be purchasing that movie? Heck no, you should have purchased a movie you had time to watch or just watched that one movie over a longer period of time. It is silly and people need to take a step back and realize what they are doing. No one is forcing you to play these games. If you feel you don't have enough time to enjoy it, simply don't play it. Play a game that you do have enough time to enjoy, that doesn't require you shortning it missing out on the reason you purchased it in the first place ... to PLAY it. |
|
|
Hrica
 Advanced Member
Joined: 3/31/05
"Yesterday is history, Tomorrow a mystery, and today is a gift" |
You mean "Microtransactions and NOT me". I am not having to do with any transactions. |
|
tvalentine
 Elite Member
Joined: 4/01/06
“The things you own end up owning you.” -Tyler Durden |
monthly fee or microtransactions i dont care if its either or, as long as its not both. Also i dont like RMTs with overpowered items or potions that will let you teleport around the world or level quicker then other people.
Playing: EVE Online |
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe
Very good point Jimmy, they have been doing this for a long time. The only thing I would mention would be in these MMORPGs you can't really choose to not pick up that content because there is only one game that all log into. Just as expansions go, you can choose not to buy it but you are still logging into the same game as everyone else where the expansion is live. In pen and paper, you and your friends can choose to stick with older versions in your game. The game master is in charge of the content not the developer. I think if MMORPGs continue with these practices they should have some servers available for people who didn't want the expansion or did not want RMT in their game. Great point though it is an old practice and the pen and paper guys have been making big money on it for years. |
|
Originally posted by ursin
The insidious part, saying we won't and then doing it. bold faced out and out blatant lying. and structuring it so they ... not announce..... not discuss..... launch it right after an expansion goes gold.
the vast majority of microtransaction games are (or is that were? lol) F2P not P2P, that is also a difference....... can a good game have microtransactions in it... or rather... can a game with microtransactions in it be a good one. probably. but in the case of EQII it's not the game i signed up for, and it's not really the game i want to be playing.
but i will... for a while longer anyway. Well, that's true but that is a specific example. I'm talking about micro-transactions in general, not the "Sony" thing. It just seems to me that they just don't get the idea of the customer. But NC Soft is also like that. |
|
|
These type of transactions have been happening since I first started playing MMOs about 10 years ago. The only difference is that people used to use third parties and ebay to purchase what they wanted. Blizzard and SOE is simply trying to cash in on what people have always done. In my opinion, they have every right to do this. Why is it OK for Chinese gold farmers to make money off of Blizzard's hard work? Any visit to a fan forum or any quick google would allow a casual player with extra cash to pay for a level up, or purchase enough gold to buy just about anything in game. Now the company is doing it legally and safely. They have created these games to make money, and I am personally surprised that they have tried so long to fight off gold farmers and ebayers when the solution is so simple and profitable. At least now, you may not get so many damn spams when you go to orgrimmar. That being said, spending RL money to cheat the natural progression of your character destroys the game economy for everyone. Which is fine because SOE had a chance to make a truly amazing game with SWG, but they botched it. WoW is about 4 years old now (i think), and it is time to see it knocked off the throne. WoW is a fun game, but it was never a serious MMORPG. These games are no longer "Role Playing Games" as we have always known them. They become Massive Multiplayer Slash & Spellcast. Character development goes out the window. The attachment and pride that we have for our characters is diminished. The community is crappy because no one has to worry about developing long term relationships in order to reach in game goals. This is how WoW has always been though. The only real solution for people that truly love "old school" MMORPGs is to find an indy game developer, and support them. Of course, then you have to deal with less-than-stellar graphics, and all of the bugs and downtime of playing a game that doesn't have a multi-million dollar budget. Then we will be right back in 1999 with a few thousand players in a game that we love/hate. 
|
|
who if crossed will give a new definition of "Hell hath no fury..."
