Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Blueharp

Originally posted by WSIMike

I can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.

And I can fully dislike and disdain anybody who starts throwing that kind of baseless accusation around.  

Also, I know plenty of people who are willing to pay for individual items instead of going to a one-price AYCE buffet.  

Do you know anyone who would play a game where the only option to acquire items was to buy them in a cash shop?  Sometimes that is how I look at issues like this to see if it would pass an extreme test. 

And I think looking at polar extremes is sometimes just silly, and misses the point.    But yes I might play in such a game, depending on the particulars.  I see no reason to rule it out without details.  What kind of items and how often will I buy them?  What is the price?   Is there an in-game exchange, or just out of game?

I think what is really being debated here is how much tollerance people have for cash shops.  I'm confident that if you ask people who don't mind shelling out for an item, that each of them would have their breaking point.   At some point they would say enough is enough and it has a negative impact on the game.

No, not really the debate here.  The problem seems to be with shelling out for any item.  I've got no particular argument with saying "Eh, that's too much" but rather with people saying "How dare you tolerate that being sold at all, do you not realize what evil horrors of capitalistic greed that entails, if you don't then you must be a shill put out to support the corporate line"

The one is not the same as the other.

Essentially cash shops are not good for mmo players, but people seem to have their own level to which they will look the other way and even support them.

People used to say that about subscriptions and gamers.   I consider that argument as flawed then as it is now.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Beatnik59

People say that the RMT model is aimed at attracting casual gamers.  I highly doubt that.

Perhaps their intent is to turn casual gamers into hardcore, but the RMT model can't sustain itself without the hardcore.  In fact, the "harder core" the playerbase, the more successful the RMT games are.

Compare that to the sub model, where casual and hardcore pay the same flat fee.

See, only hardcore nuts like us would spend real money for coded perks, especially when they are as conditional as ArcAngel3 says they are.  Think about the stuff we could get with that money--stuff that doesn't disappear or change--stuff with some consumer protection or quality control.

Only a real hardcore MMO addict would spend money on virtual goods, given the conditions.  But since there are so many hardcore MMO addicts, I don't think the developers are going to have the incentive to make things any better anytime soon.

This is flat-out wrong when Farmville is considered.  Very casual. Very successful.  F2P RMT model.

 I think Farmville makes my case extremely well.

Many think that the distinction between casual and hardcore is about "hours logged."  It isn't, and never was.

It's about emotional attachment to the game.  Hours logged is just one indication of emotional attachment.  One does not need to have a lot of hours logged to be emotionally invested in what goes on.  Take EVE.  There are people there who buy and maintain accounts just to participate on the forums, or create characters for the whole purpose of being "placeholders."

Well hardcore/casual are relative terms.

It's perfectly acceptable to say there are hardcore/casual Farmville players within the Farmville community.  Some are more invested (in time/effort/money) than others.  And it's these "hardcore" farmville players who indeed make Farmville's success possible.

The problem comes with the fact that most people are going to hear you say "hardcore Farmville players" and laugh.

And that's basically the fundamental reason "hardcore" is such a flimsy term.  You have to define the specific parameters each time, so someone knows whether you're comparing Farmville players with each other, or gamers as a whole (99% of gamers are going to call all farmville players casual...even Zynga themselves call em casual.)

I personally speak with my wallet and not subscribe to any soe games anymore. I am part of a growing trend.

A lot of people just want to pay the monthly fee, play and have fun, but SoE has taken the nickel and dime strategy in every direction they could and that just takes away from the game.

Originally posted by Blueharp

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Blueharp

Originally posted by WSIMike

I can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.

And I can fully dislike and disdain anybody who starts throwing that kind of baseless accusation around.  

Also, I know plenty of people who are willing to pay for individual items instead of going to a one-price AYCE buffet.  

Do you know anyone who would play a game where the only option to acquire items was to buy them in a cash shop?  Sometimes that is how I look at issues like this to see if it would pass an extreme test. 

And I think looking at polar extremes is sometimes just silly, and misses the point.    But yes I might play in such a game, depending on the particulars.  I see no reason to rule it out without details.  What kind of items and how often will I buy them?  What is the price?   Is there an in-game exchange, or just out of game?

 

I think what is really being debated here is how much tollerance people have for cash shops.  I'm confident that if you ask people who don't mind shelling out for an item, that each of them would have their breaking point.   At some point they would say enough is enough and it has a negative impact on the game.

No, not really the debate here.  The problem seems to be with shelling out for any item.  I've got no particular argument with saying "Eh, that's too much" but rather with people saying "How dare you tolerate that being sold at all, do you not realize what evil horrors of capitalistic greed that entails, if you don't then you must be a shill put out to support the corporate line"

The one is not the same as the other.

 

Essentially cash shops are not good for mmo players, but people seem to have their own level to which they will look the other way and even support them.

People used to say that about subscriptions and gamers.   I consider that argument as flawed then as it is now.

Great reply.    I would like to clarify a few of my comments that I see now are not very well defined.

As to the "extremes", you are right, but as a sort of litmus test they do put things in perspective in the games that are already on the market that we are discussing.  Not some fictious games that don't exist yet, sorry I should have been clear about that. 

If looking at something from an extreme view of 100% results in a completely negative view of the aspect with no redeeming qualities at all, then it is pretty safe to assume that at 10%, 5% or whatever it is still negative.  Thus the "not a big deal" comments which do acknowledge it is a problem, just not on a large scale yet. 

Would players in wow or eq2 [for example] be excited about all vanity items being cash shop only or the inclusion of raid/pvp items [again just as an example]?  Would that be a benefit for players in comparison to what they have now?  Even though I do not want to speak for everyone, I do think the answer would be no for almost everyone.   Almost all of the discussion revolves around peoples unspoken tollerance levels.  For some it is any sale at all, for others things have not gone to far yet.  When people say things like "its not a big deal" or "its only fluff items" that indirectly speaks to the nature of it as well.  Not a big deal.. until X happens.  Its only X items.... and as long as they don't sell Y items it isn't a problem.  It is like reading people say "it is a problem that doesn't affect me, so I don't care". 

I don't think people have recognized this when making such comments. 

As for my last comment, it should read 'cash shops are not good for mmo players in subscription based mmos'.  I've asked the question a few dozens times on this site and never have I been given a half way decent response that wasn't centered around players avoiding actually playing the game. 

So I ask again, What benefit is it to subscription based mmo players to have content not included for free (as in game achievement for in game acitivies) and instead have it be placed in a cash shop for 20-50% of the price of the entire game? 

Where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?

Not only that, but cash shops are almost exactly opposed to the design goals of a subscription based game.  One process wants to give players as much as possible to keep them subscribers and the other needs to deny enough gameplay the entice players into transactions. 

Hopefully clears up my thoughts a bit more. 

Originally posted by Kungaloosh1

I personally speak with my wallet and not subscribe to any soe games anymore. I am part of a growing trend.

A lot of people just want to pay the monthly fee, play and have fun, but SoE has taken the nickel and dime strategy in every direction they could and that just takes away from the game.

I'd like to see some evidence for you claim that you're in the growing trend.  I think the Celestial Horse in WoW is a good counter-example to that.  Maybe you wish that, and I can sympathize with the thought, but I think you're wrong.

I do wish I could pay a never increasing monthly fee and not be subject to MTs and still get ALL the goodies, but I don't think it's a realistic expectation, not only in MMOs, but in most entertainment and hobbies.  I also think you're wildly exaggerating saying "SoE has taken the nickel and dime strategy in EVERY direction they could".  I'm still happily playing EQ2 and don't feel obligated to buy anything in the cash shop to enjoy the game.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Sanguinelust

Originally posted by erictlewis

But It does bother me to keep seeing stuff added to the cash shop in eq2 that affects player progression. I never minded the fluff, but its all the stuff that affects how quick you level and get aa and other things that gives folks who have the cash an unfair advantage.

 

I consider myself one of those folks who "have the cash" and I also would use a cash shop if the purchase was usefull to me but I don't see it as an unfair advantage.

Consider the folks who "have the time", they get to play for long stretches, make in game money and level while I have to use my time working for long stretches while I would like to be playing. To me  the folks with the time to spend have an unfair advantage because they were able to play longer level faster than I and have more game money than I do. Whats the difference if i decided to purchase something with money I earned because I couldn't play long enough to do it within the game?

Seems to me that whatever happens, it happened because it was earned, one way (playing) or the other (paying).

Paying a subscription fee allows you the same exact access to the game as every other player has.  Everyone in this situation has the exact same potential to achieve in game.   There is no advantage.

I've just never understood the notion that spending time at work should somehow translate into achievements in a video game.  Filing TPS reports is not the equivalent of completing a quest   Just the concept that someone actually playing a video game has an advantage over someone who doesn't as justification for purchasing "useful" advancement is absurd. 

 

Video games are meant to be an escape from real life issues.  Rewarding developers for dragging those issues into their design choices doesn't make much sense.  No matter how it is justified.

Paying the fee gives everyone access to a game but time is, and will always be, the advantage in MMO's. The more time invested the better your character gets, the better your character gets the more content you get to experience. In fact the way I see it time is the ultimate advantage in regards to MMO's

I don't understand the notion of working equalling achievements in a game either, I don't even know what you're talking about there. The only time I've ever even heard of a TPS report was in a movie but I'm sure there's no golden ! above the person who's suposed to recieve that report. Useful advancement can only be made if a game is being played so if I'm not playing theres no way I would even be able to purchase an advantage so I agree that notion is absurd.

What I am saying is that if I can spend a little money to get 1.5 or 2x xp than I see no unfair advantage as I would still be playing the game to level just as the person who played it through without the extra xp did because they had the time. Purchasing levels or better gear, now that I would consider an unfair advantage over someone who lacks the funds for that kind of instant advancement and is something I do not agree with nor is it something I would do.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Great reply.    I would like to clarify a few of my comments that I see now are not very well defined.

As to the "extremes", you are right, but as a sort of litmus test they do put things in perspective in the games that are already on the market that we are discussing.  Not some fictious games that don't exist yet, sorry I should have been clear about that. 

If looking at something from an extreme view of 100% results in a completely negative view of the aspect with no redeeming qualities at all, then it is pretty safe to assume that at 10%, 5% or whatever it is still negative.  Thus the "not a big deal" comments which do acknowledge it is a problem, just not on a large scale yet. 

The problem with that is...it's not accurate all.   It's like chemistry.   Too little of some things...may kill you.  So may too much of the same thing.   Or cooking.   Add some salt?  May make the soup better.  Add too much?   That's probably going to ruin the soup.   Somebody might not like pepper.  Doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't want it.

Not all things are automatically negative, or even universally negative. 

So I ask again, What benefit is it to subscription based mmo players to have content not included for free (as in game achievement for in game acitivies) and instead have it be placed in a cash shop for 20-50% of the price of the entire game? 

Where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?

The benefit as I see it is that some players who want some things can get it without the rest of the players having to subsidize them.  Those players may even subsidize the rest of the player base

Not only that, but cash shops are almost exactly opposed to the design goals of a subscription based game.  One process wants to give players as much as possible to keep them subscribers and the other needs to deny enough gameplay the entice players into transactions.

Goals and reality often divergent.   Nothing necessarily nefarious there.  

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

I understand the point as as I've noted elsewhere, I can commiserate with people hating this. Heck, my entire life is peppered with me liking something but having it no longer continued or supported becaues it is not popular or things tend to go another way.

but the thing is, and what is a bit amusing to me despite the pain of those who hate it (er, sorry) is that none of this is new.

Records went by the wayside because of CD's. Oh sure, now you can find them a bit more in stores but there was huge backlash from people who didn't want to go digital because records just give better quality.

Cable was a "pay once and get all this value" proposition. And didn't have commericals. But now it's a al carte and there are commericals.

And look, there are companies that want you to rent your music by subscribing to their system so you can have access to all of it any time you want. But you stop subbing and it's gone. That is the one that makes me shiver the most.

It is true, the more people buy into this the more it will be done. The problem is that it just isn't a big deal to many people. Players (who are against) can scream as much as they want but if they fall into the minority then they are going to have to make a decision.

Maybe it's my age or that I happen to enjoy media that others might cringe at, but I'm used to being in the minority when it comes to having things change that I don't like. Yes, people should complain and make their point be heard. But if it does go another way then that is that. It certainly is not the first time and won't be the last time.

And what it might mean is that some indy developer, years from now will make a game that doesn't have the greatest graphics or has issues but it will be a simple sub model. Maybe even a full sandbox, who knows. But if players don't get behind these people then it's going to be harder and hard for indy developers to justify doing things different than the larger mega-companies.

In the end you have to vote with your wallet, either accept the outcome or do things yourself (make your own game/company) and move on.

Things change. It just so happens that gamers are getting a reality dosage that they aren't immune to some of these changes that other media types have experienced for years.

Still not following you, Sov.

For you cable analogy... I've never paid for a cable service where a single "added value option" cost the better part of the base monthly fee.

As far as the Record/CD analogy... maybe I just missed it, but I don't see how that relates at all to this. A closer analogy would be the Divx thing (not the codec) that was being tossed around by folks like Steven Spielberg, where they wanted people to buy a DVD and only get a set number of views out of it, and then have to pay more to watch it more times. Notice how that concept didn't take off? Because it was a bad idea... people don't like the idea of being nickel and dimed after they'd already purchased the product.

My point stands... It's a rather disturbing path we're going down where people will support - and even applaud - developers for charging the better part of the price for a full game, for something that amounts to barely 1% of it that would ordinarily be included as part of an expansion or content update. Blizzard's done it with how many mounts now, including rare ones? Well over a hundred last time I heard. So what's so special about this new one they added? Does it somehow do something that none of the others do, warranting a stand-alone $25 price tag?

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Now that IS entertainment you can buy and enjoy!

I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.

And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.

So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.

So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or B) Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?

Just want to make sure I understand your statement.

Nope. If the choices are

A) buy it $25, or

B) NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)

Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Now that IS entertainment you can buy and enjoy!

I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.

And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.

So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.

So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or B) Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?

Just want to make sure I understand your statement.

 

Nope. If the choices are

A) buy it $25, or

B) NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)

Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.

Okay... Thanks for the clarification :)

Originally posted by WSIMike

For you cable analogy... I've never paid for a cable service where a single "added value option" cost the better part of the base monthly fee.

If you want to say the price is too high, that's all well and good, and I'll get behind that.

This is about the offering though, not the price.  They are two different arguments.

So what's so special about this new one they added?

Well, for one thing, this is buying the same mount for all your characters, not just one.

I might be willing to do something once.   Twice.  Three times....but let's say I play 9 characters.  Am I going to want to do the same thing that many times?  And then there's some other stuff in the game that I just don't want to do at all.  Like the Arena mounts.  Never going to get one of them.   Ever.  So...I have to be satisfied with not getting some mounts no matter what they do.

And if you only have to do it once, then get it automatically on all your characters...well, there are going to be people complaining about that too.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Now that IS entertainment you can buy and enjoy!

I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.

And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.

So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.

So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or B) Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?

Just want to make sure I understand your statement.

 

Nope. If the choices are

A) buy it $25, or

B) NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)

Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.

And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.

Originally posted by Drachasor

And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.

Or it would never exist at all.

Proof either way?

Nobody has it.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Now that IS entertainment you can buy and enjoy!

I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.

And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.

So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.

So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or B) Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?

Just want to make sure I understand your statement.

 

Nope. If the choices are

A) buy it $25, or

B) NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)

Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.

We will never know if artists that are currently employed to work on the game are pulled away to make these items for the cash shop. So we both have no definite answer. I believe if you pay a sub all content must be included in the game.

Originally posted by Blueharp

Originally posted by Drachasor

And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.

Or it would never exist at all.

Proof either way?

Nobody has it.

You're joking right?  It isn't like Blizzard hired extra people to just make RMT content.  Part of their staff is making that which would be making other things instead since they are employed.  As I have said elsewhere, RMT also devalues content that is already in the game.

Originally posted by qombi

We will never know if artists that are currently employed to work on the game are pulled away to make these items for the cash shop. So we both have no definite answer. I believe if you pay a sub all content must be included in the game.

Eh, what else would the arists who are employed to work on the game be doing?

I have to wonder how many people that are bitching about SoE in this thread....have actually played EQ2.  I'm sure there are bitter SWG players represented here, but I rather doubt there are many current EQ2 players here that are pissing and moaning about the item shop, because....people that enjoy EQ2 and are playing it....I don't see them bitching in game...like...ever.

The ones who like it use it. The ones who don't care don't. The ones who hate it...leave. Seems really pretty simple.

But it's another good old conspiracy thread.  Blizzard ruined MMOs being challenging, and having decent communities, and SoE ruined the meaning of subscriptions by intermingling RMTs. I wonder what developer with get blamed for the next thing someone comes along and doesn't like?

You know....I don't even CARE what a developer's "motives" are for ANY damn thing they do.....AS LONG AS....they are providing me with a game that is entertaining and exciting to me. I don't care if they drive Lamborghini's, I don't care if their children all go to Ivy League schools....I simply don't care.  All I care about is that they present me with a product that I can sink my teeth into and enjoy. And if they raise the monthly payments too high for my budget, or fill the item shop with things I personally deem are unfair....then I....just ME....have a decision to make about whether I want to continue to financially support them. If I....just ME (since I'm the only one paying my bills) feel that they entertainment provided to me is worth the money that I spend....I couldn't care less WHAT the dev's motives are or what anyone else thinks of them.

We all pay our own gaming bills. We can all choose who gets that money...and how much...and what game entertains us the most for our money spent.

Originally posted by Blueharp

[1] The problem with that is...it's not accurate all.   It's like chemistry.   Too little of some things...may kill you.  So may too much of the same thing.   Or cooking.   Add some salt?  May make the soup better.  Add too much?   That's probably going to ruin the soup.   Somebody might not like pepper.  Doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't want it.

Not all things are automatically negative, or even universally negative. 

[2] The benefit as I see it is that some players who want some things can get it without the rest of the players having to subsidize them.  Those players may even subsidize the rest of the player base

 

[3] Goals and reality often divergent.   Nothing necessarily nefarious there.  

[1] It is just an exercise for perspective.  Sometimes is exposes something like here, and sometimes it doesn't, like in the case of soups, etc.  It's ok if we disagree. 

[2] That doesn't float either.  People paying $15 a month don't need funding from other players.  Also it defeats the entire purpose of an all access subscription fee and only further reinforces the mentality of "premium players" as far as developers are concerned.  Every item now has a pricetag choice to it.  Give it free to the masses or sell it to the premium members.

Furthermore, I can't think of any subscription based mmo that has added a cash shop and then increased development cycles or content.  The few case I can think of have all seen a decress in free content releases.  I've yet to see an example of cash shop money enhancing the rest of the game for everyone.

So again I ask, where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?

[3] I'm not saying it is nefarious or evil.  What I am saying is the basic elements that make a cash shop fucntion conflict with the basic elements that make a subscription game function.  One process thrives on denying players content and the other thrives on supplying players with content.  It is a conflict that doesn't blend well together.  

Originally posted by Drachasor

And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.

Or it would never exist at all.

Proof either way?

Nobody has it.

You're joking right?  It isn't like Blizzard hired extra people to just make RMT content.  Part of their staff is making that which would be making other things instead since they are employed.  As I have said elsewhere, RMT also devalues content that is already in the game.

You're the one who is posting things I find to be silly.  Sadly it's no joke.  I certainly don't pretend to know how Blizzard's staff is compensated, how many they have, or what they'd be doing instead.  If you do have actual evidence, feel free to present it.

Until then...we're just shooting bull.  It could be either way.

Let's all go check the President of Blizzard/Activision's house for gold-plated bathtubs!

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Blueharp

[1] The problem with that is...it's not accurate all.   It's like chemistry.   Too little of some things...may kill you.  So may too much of the same thing.   Or cooking.   Add some salt?  May make the soup better.  Add too much?   That's probably going to ruin the soup.   Somebody might not like pepper.  Doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't want it.

Not all things are automatically negative, or even universally negative. 

[2] The benefit as I see it is that some players who want some things can get it without the rest of the players having to subsidize them.  Those players may even subsidize the rest of the player base

[3] Goals and reality often divergent.   Nothing necessarily nefarious there.  

[1] It is just an exercise for perspective.  Sometimes is exposes something like here, and sometimes it doesn't, like in the case of soups, etc.  It's ok if we disagree. 

Well...ok.   In this case, I don't think absolutes proves that any is unacceptable.

[2] That doesn't float either.  People paying $15 a month don't need funding from other players. 

That all depends on how much of their subscription fee is cost and how much is profit.  I don't pretend to know, but I can believe that it is conceivable.

Further analysis?   Not going to worry too much about it, but if you want to investigate Blizzard's interanl budgeting as to assets and accounting...well, I'm in favor of trasparency as a general rule.

Also it defeats the entire purpose of an all access subscription fee and only further reinforces the mentality of "premium players" as far as developers are concerned.  Every item now has a pricetag choice to it.  Give it free to the masses or sell it to the premium members.

That's part of why I only support cosmetic items being for sale.  So you bought a mount.  Cool beans for you.

I can not care and be happy with myself.  It works out very well for me.

Furthermore, I can't think of any subscription based mmo that has added a cash shop and then increased development cycles or content.  The few case I can think of have all seen a decress in free content releases.  I've yet to see an example of cash shop money enhancing the rest of the game for everyone.

I believe D&D online is the widely named example of a dying game revitalized by cash shops.  I don't know if they've achieved any increase in development cycles or content, but at least they didn't shut down.

So again I ask, where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?

I gave you a potential benefit.  People can buy what they want without it costing everybody else.  If you don't agree it is one, well we can't really resolve that disagreement with out limited evidence.

[3] I'm not saying it is nefarious or evil.  What I am saying is the basic elements that make a cash shop fucntion conflict with the basic elements that make a subscription game function.  One process thrives on denying players content and the other thrives on supplying players with content.  It is a conflict that doesn't blend well together.  

A lot of people are saying it is nefarious and evil.   And yes, that dichotomy is true.  Which is I don't support a wholesale cashshop as a rule, but am willing to accept a limited one.   A few items here and there?   Great bonus.   Use it to support further stuff that you wouldn't otherwise.  Or make parts of your playerbase happy with some item they wouldn't get otherwise.

It's also why I don't mind the Arena Tournament.   And it's the same reason I can accept being charged extra for sour cream at the Taco Shop.