Elder Scrolls Online might not have one, would be surprised if it doesn't though.

Beyond that, lets see... Wildstar, NCSoft, probably will... Neverwinter, Cryptic/PWE, will have one.... Planetside 2, SOE, will have one... ArcheAge, no publisher, currently doesn't have one in Korea.... I've run out of big MMOs now.

I think subscription only games are a thing of the past, it is either the market leader and subscription only (WoW), or it is subscription + micro transactions (everything else from AAA companies), or just micro transactions (everything from smaller companies).

Originally posted by Waterlily

Hellooo,

Are there any big upcoming games that don't have a cash shop or is this genre gone off the deep end. I'd like to know beforehand if I start a game that it won't have a cash shop 2 weeks after release, it's bad enough they do that pre-order stuff, now I have to deal with cash shops popping up everywhere. Any developers left with a spine?

Thank you.

Cash shops are just a payment delivery method.  You do want to pay for your games right?

We the customer have driven the market into creating cash shops and it was not the other away around, it started when people bought gold in games. We want F2P, no monthly sub etc, but these games still need to be paid for.

So it is not a matter of devs having a spine its about gettnig paid. I would rather pay for a quality game, whether by cash shop or by monthly sub, then to have shoddy f2p games without any depth.

What do you want, besides having your cake and eating it?

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

I want mmorpg's that are separated from external factors as much as possible.   Total separation is not possible but cash shop definately add alot of it. In this regard it is not diffrent for me purely personally  than botting, gold selling or cheating or maybe more accurately like minor cheat codes just payed ones.  I dont judge anyone - some cash shops are made in a way that don't bother those game playerbase it seems so I am happy that they are happy. 

I just want to simply opt-out of games with CS (and rmah and gold selling,etc) and I am interested in games that don't have them.

I don't even like pre-order perks, special edition in-game perks or things like that though because they are one-time I learned to tolerate them, if they are very small.  It is not about quality.  Of course I don't want subpar games, but that's not it.

I will stop here as this is not topic for discussion about cash shops. 

OP asked about mmorpg's without cash shop and he has every right to ask and he has every right to want to play without cash shops like someone else has every right to want to play other games without subscription or even box price.  You just seem agressive about it.

 

If you want to discuss further or in more detail about why I don't like cash shops then feel free to PM me or even start a topic.

Nope OP started it, he implied it was spineless to have a cash shop and the genre is worse because of games that have it. I was calling him out, because my bullshit detector spiked. Do you agree with him or not?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

I want mmorpg's that are separated from external factors as much as possible.   Total separation is not possible but cash shop definately add alot of it. In this regard it is not diffrent for me purely personally  than botting, gold selling or cheating or maybe more accurately like minor cheat codes just payed ones.  I dont judge anyone - some cash shops are made in a way that don't bother those game playerbase it seems so I am happy that they are happy. 

I just want to simply opt-out of games with CS (and rmah and gold selling,etc) and I am interested in games that don't have them.

I don't even like pre-order perks, special edition in-game perks or things like that though because they are one-time I learned to tolerate them, if they are very small.  It is not about quality.  Of course I don't want subpar games, but that's not it.

I will stop here as this is not topic for discussion about cash shops. 

OP asked about mmorpg's without cash shop and he has every right to ask and he has every right to want to play without cash shops like someone else has every right to want to play other games without subscription or even box price.  You just seem agressive about it.

 

If you want to discuss further or in more detail about why I don't like cash shops then feel free to PM me or even start a topic.

Nope OP started it, he implied it was spineless to have a cash shop and the genre is worse because of games that have it. I was calling him out, because my bullshit detector spiked. Do you agree with him or not?

"started it"?  What's this kindergarten?

Anyway - cash shops existence have an impact on reason why I personally play mmorpg's - so in this regard games without it are better.

If you're asking about graphics, combat type, amounf of content, bugs, etc  - those matter are not impacted by cash shop existence so for those things it generally does not matter if there is CS or not.

It really depends what you exactly mean by "worse" or "better" because I suspect that our definitions of this regarding mmorpg's might be difftent.

Originally posted by VultureSkull

We the customer have driven the market into creating cash shops and it was not the other away around

what?

The cash shops in games came directly from Asian games who had it, not a single person in the West asked for this.

And as far as people buying old, not everyone buys gold in games, not everyone uses a credit card to go buy gold from some chinese farmers who will probably end up stealing your credit card.

Now it's our fault? Not the fault of the developers trying to nickle and dime every last penny from the consumer?

You can't be serious.

I know so many people whined and complained and protested SoE and many straight up LEFT Everquest when they implemented a cash shop, but you're trying to blame the players?

It's also no longer F2P games, many P2P games either have a cash shop from the start and plenty who didn't got one down the road, usually under protest from the players.

It's one thing to say you don't mind cash shop, it's another to try to blame the players instead of the developers. MANY players have said no to cash shops, in many games the majority of the players said no, but the developers did it anyway. Many P2P games have gotten cash shop after players said no, because the developers caved in to either greed or pressure from the executives. Don't blame the players for that stuff.

I was hoping new MMO's coming up like PS 2 would not have a CS as they are so pvp orientated. But when you realise that in B3 you can buy a "premimum" status, you see that paying after launch for gameplay altering items is rife in the games industry.

Cash shops are not going anywhere soon as they are seen as a possible savour, I regard this as shortsighted and misguided. 

To those that said Darkfall won't ever have a cash shop.

Will Unholy Wars stick with the original subscription model, or has any thought been given to microtransactions, etc.?

We're sticking with the original subscription model for now. We feel that it's tricky to take such a competitive PvP game to free-to-play microtransactions, seeing that it's essential you offer a level playing field for everyone, something we're determined to preserve with Darkfall: Unholy Wars.

This doesn't mean we're not looking at microtransactions. We're very interested if we can get it right. Our main objective right now is to get the game out. After that, we're going to put resources into designing a microtransaction model that works for us and that our players are happy with. We expect to learn a lot from our Korean partners at Mgame, and I'm positive that we'll need to innovate heavily if it's going to be perfect for Darkfall: Unholy Wars.

We're not going to force it just because everyone seems to be hopping on the microtransaction bandwagon. We understand that more players would try out the game, but they could also end up having to spend more money.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/09/aventurine-on-darkfalls-new-ui-payment-models-and-more/

Originally posted by TangentPoint

Originally posted by Quirhid
With that attitude, I think we are better off without you than trying to explain to you why you are wrong. You'd do yourself a favor by viewing cash shops more openly.

... as in, be more willing to open your wallet, as often as possible.

That's pretty much what Cash Shops, and the games built around them, are designed to do, after all.

Anyway, back on topic. As was noted, Rift doesn't have a cash shop, though that's not an upcoming game. Darkfall Unholy wars won't have one, so far as we know. Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn won't (again, unless they announce otherwise, which I don't expect they will).

There's probably others that I'm just not aware of.

Well, some of them are more about paying than others. EQ2 is more about paying than LOTRO which in turn is more about it than DDO. There are after all layers in hell.

But yes, companies like EA and Activision dont add cashshops to make a game cheaper, they want more of our money.

And it sucks that there arent more alternatives without cashshops, it would be best for us if we could choose between P2P with no cashshop, B2P with only cosmetic stuff and F2P with full shop. Adding cashshops to P2P is really what is killing of that payment model.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by VultureSkull

We the customer have driven the market into creating cash shops and it was not the other away around

what?

The cash shops in games came directly from Asian games who had it, not a single person in the West asked for this.

And as far as people buying old, not everyone buys gold in games, not everyone uses a credit card to go buy gold from some chinese farmers who will probably end up stealing your credit card.

Now it's our fault? Not the fault of the developers trying to nickle and dime every last penny from the consumer?

You can't be serious.

I know so many people whined and complained and protested SoE and many straight up LEFT Everquest when they implemented a cash shop, but you're trying to blame the players?

You don't see the contradiction in your statement because you have accepted your personal perception as fact.

• "not a single person in the West asked for this"
• "not everyone buys gold in games"
• "so many people complained" "many straight up left"
• "the fault of the developers trying to nickle and dime every last penny from the consumer"

Well, wait a second here. You say players don't want this and they aren't buying game gold and they are leaving the games because of this option, but then go on to say the companies are trying to "nickel and dime" the playerbase. Are you saying MMO gamers (except you, of course) are all extremely stupid and they will spend money they don't want to spend on things they don't want in games they don't like?

If they don't want this, don't buy game gold and are leaving the games, how are the MMO companies making money?

You're suggesting that the game devs are manipulative and greedy, but then suggesting they will use a business model that the audience doesn't like or want. There's no logic to your reasoning there.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by VultureSkull

We the customer have driven the market into creating cash shops and it was not the other away around

what?

The cash shops in games came directly from Asian games who had it, not a single person in the West asked for this.

And as far as people buying old, not everyone buys gold in games, not everyone uses a credit card to go buy gold from some chinese farmers who will probably end up stealing your credit card.

Now it's our fault? Not the fault of the developers trying to nickle and dime every last penny from the consumer?

You can't be serious.

I know so many people whined and complained and protested SoE and many straight up LEFT Everquest when they implemented a cash shop, but you're trying to blame the players?

You don't see the contradiction in your statement because you have accepted your personal perception as fact.

• "not a single person in the West asked for this"
• "not everyone buys gold in games"
• "so many people complained" "many straight up left"
• "the fault of the developers trying to nickle and dime every last penny from the consumer"

 

Well, wait a second here. You say players don't want this and they aren't buying game gold and they are leaving the games because of this option, but then go on to say the companies are trying to "nickel and dime" the playerbase. Are you saying MMO gamers (except you, of course) are all extremely stupid and they will spend money they don't want to spend on things they don't want in games they don't like?

If they don't want this, don't buy game gold and are leaving the games, how are the MMO companies making money?

You're suggesting that the game devs are manipulative and greedy, but then suggesting they will use a business model that the audience doesn't like or want. There's no logic to your reasoning there.

 

Habituation and manipulation can go a long way to make people do things that they wouldn't have done without those methods.

Cash shops are fundamentally bad for game design in the genre, far past P2W which is usually seen as the only bugbear in the received wisdom of many.

Look at GW2...I love it as a solo player RPG, it has delivered the value of it's box cost to me and I am still playing it, BUT anyone that can't see the blatant design choices in that game even that are intended to manipulate you into the cash shop is in some kind of denial. It informs almost every design decision made in the game, alongside E-Sports PvP, and in not one case for the better. 

I could also go into, at length, about how pay to achieve in these things effects their basic natures, moving them from 'games' and into the more vague 'entertainment product' area and why this is bad, but that may be a different thread. I could also talk about their impact on community building as they create a transient player base, but again... maybe another time.

Is any game actually made 'better' by a cash shop? Has it as a model actually made any game more 'fun'? Or has it simply tapped into greed, laziness and compulsive 'addiction', the same way as loading chocolate bars at a supermarket checkout does in order to generate *more* profit at the consumer's expense?

The overlying problem with cash shops isn't that they're an unethical platform for providing profit or stabilization, despite several instances in which they've been presented that way, but that they manifest artifical obstacles for developers to program buyable solutions to bypass. How that makes you feel depends entirely on how you perceive your time playing games and what it is you're looking for, but I'm an art before commerce kind of guy. I like the integrity of a project to be wholely based upon the process of creation, without the necessity to design for financial success. That doesn't mean the two are exclusive from one another, or should be. It's fairly obvious that most studios are forced to blance the two, so I wouldn't dispute that budgeting and management are a large fraction of what promotes success.

Subscription games have their own problems with monetization and artificial obstacles, as many of you would be sure to notify me. What's in it for a developer to provide constant updates for content or technicality when they've a fixed income at the end of every month? In order to maintain subscriptions, developers are forced to produce to keep players interested. I'm fairly certain there are cases which this isn't true, but when looking at games like WoW, AOC, or Rift -- especially Rift -- it's proved to be in the best interest of designers of subscription games to constantly find new ways to make the experience worth the price.

Now consider that  F2P games can thrive on a minority of frequently purchasing players, which makes the retention of membership or long term expansion less vital. What do designers create in this situation, to prompt the continuation of profit? Content isn't necessarily as important if maintaining players can be placed on the back burner, which doesn't mean it's completely ignored, so how do they convince players to spend money? In the istance of games like Allods, which is probably one of the most unethical forms of implementation for a cash shop, designers hinder the experience of players who aren't paying by removing helpful features, or creating artificial obstacles like reduced experience gain and inventory space, while conveniently providing priced solutions.

So when I say F2P games are inherently flawed, I'm not saying they're bad, or particularly unethical. Guild Wars 2 seems to be doing the cash shop model of B2P with respect for the player experience, which I can appreciate. More options is always a good thing, but F2P games are flawed from conception. That is to say, any game designed to provide a frustrating or less adequate experience which can be removed by paying, particularly under the guise of being "free to play", was not designed with the player in mind, for the player. And again, this all depends upon which side of the art versus commerce debate you've seated yourself. Obviously, a game or project designed with flaws to frustrate or coerce players into paying was not designed specifically with artistic integrity in mind.

I also posted this response in my blog, so feel free to let me know what you think.

Originally posted by Hurvart
I think there is no CS in Rift. There will be a new expansion soon. I hope more developers understand that some players refuse to play CS games.  We need good games that are worth playing.

There is a CS shop in Rift - it is on their website. You can buy mounts, etc.

Originally posted by Loke666

And it sucks that there arent more alternatives without cashshops, it would be best for us if we could choose between P2P with no cashshop, B2P with only cosmetic stuff and F2P with full shop. Adding cashshops to P2P is really what is killing of that payment model.

Agreed.

I have a feeling there will be more games with CS to offset the lowering of sub fees or no sub fees.

It is not inherently bad - far from it, but it does make people feel elitist when they can get all the shiny armor you don't. THat is the inherent flaw.

I like GW2 and have not used the CS yet.

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

The overlying problem with cash shops isn't that they're an unethical platform for providing profit or stabilization, despite several instances in which they've been presented that way, but that they manifest artifical obstacles for developers to program buyable solutions to bypass. How that makes you feel depends entirely on how you perceive your time playing games and what it is you're looking for, but I'm an art before commerce kind of guy. I like the integrity of a project to be wholely based upon the process of creation, without the necessity to design for financial success. That doesn't mean the two are exclusive from one another, or should be. It's fairly obvious that most studios are forced to blance the two, so I wouldn't dispute that budgeting and management are a large fraction of what promotes success.

 

Subscription games have their own problems with monetization and artificial obstacles, as many of you would be sure to notify me. What's in it for a developer to provide constant updates for content or technicality when they've a fixed income at the end of every month? In order to maintain subscriptions, developers are forced to produce to keep players interested. I'm fairly certain there are cases which this isn't true, but when looking at games like WoW, AOC, or Rift -- especially Rift -- it's proved to be in the best interest of designers of subscription games to constantly find new ways to make the experience worth the price.

 

Now consider that  F2P games can thrive on a minority of frequently purchasing players, which makes the retention of membership or long term expansion less vital. What do designers create in this situation, to prompt the continuation of profit? Content isn't necessarily as important if maintaining players can be placed on the back burner, which doesn't mean it's completely ignored, so how do they convince players to spend money? In the istance of games like Allods, which is probably one of the most unethical forms of implementation for a cash shop, designers hinder the experience of players who aren't paying by removing helpful features, or creating artificial obstacles like reduced experience gain and inventory space, while conveniently providing priced solutions.

 

So when I say F2P games are inherently flawed, I'm not saying they're bad, or particularly unethical. Guild Wars 2 seems to be doing the cash shop model of B2P with respect for the player experience, which I can appreciate. More options is always a good thing, but F2P games are flawed from conception. That is to say, any game designed to provide a frustrating or less adequate experience which can be removed by paying, particularly under the guise of being "free to play", was not designed with the player in mind, for the player. And again, this all depends upon which side of the art versus commerce debate you've seated yourself. Obviously, a game or project designed with flaws to frustrate or coerce players into paying was not designed specifically with artistic integrity in mind.

 

I also posted this response in my blog, so feel free to let me know what you think.

I'd imagine a person like you would give their unreserved support only B2P games, possibly with a strictly cosmetic and service oriented CS.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by VultureSkull

We the customer have driven the market into creating cash shops and it was not the other away around

what?

The cash shops in games came directly from Asian games who had it, not a single person in the West asked for this.

And as far as people buying old, not everyone buys gold in games, not everyone uses a credit card to go buy gold from some chinese farmers who will probably end up stealing your credit card.

Now it's our fault? Not the fault of the developers trying to nickle and dime every last penny from the consumer?

You can't be serious.

I know so many people whined and complained and protested SoE and many straight up LEFT Everquest when they implemented a cash shop, but you're trying to blame the players?

You don't see the contradiction in your statement because you have accepted your personal perception as fact.

• "not a single person in the West asked for this"
• "not everyone buys gold in games"
• "so many people complained" "many straight up left"
• "the fault of the developers trying to nickle and dime every last penny from the consumer"

 

Well, wait a second here. You say players don't want this and they aren't buying game gold and they are leaving the games because of this option, but then go on to say the companies are trying to "nickel and dime" the playerbase. Are you saying MMO gamers (except you, of course) are all extremely stupid and they will spend money they don't want to spend on things they don't want in games they don't like?

If they don't want this, don't buy game gold and are leaving the games, how are the MMO companies making money?

You're suggesting that the game devs are manipulative and greedy, but then suggesting they will use a business model that the audience doesn't like or want. There's no logic to your reasoning there.

 

I see many posts of you and most don't make sense.

I said NOT EVERYONE buys gold, and MANY disagreed with P2P made into cash shop games. I didn't say EVERYONE.

And because some use the cash shop does not mean EVERYONE agrees with this.

How is that concept so hard to grasp, jesus.

Sorry if my post comes over harch but I have argued with people like you before, who purpously refuse to see any logic in someone's post even though the original post is crystal clear, arguing back and forth. 1 explanation for you, not 2, I have no time for this.