I'd like to comment on this portion of the roundtable discussion:

"Jeff from Ten Ton Hammer then asked why the team couldn’t seem to hit that monthly stride.  Essentially, Mark says, they just found out how hard the process was once the game was launched.  With the necessity of submitting updates through so many different approval processes while trying to maintain quantity and quality, they just haven’t nailed it yet."

Hmm, so before launch, you weren't aware of the approval process for submitting updates.  Really? 

I'll be blunt, I don't believe you.  Why?  Because I've seen SOE do this before: sell people a broken game with very little content, and make promises to people that they don't follow through on.

Imo, everyone who bought the game and/or subcription time on the basis of the promised updates should now qualify for a refund. 

I found a thought-provoking article about game reviews in general written by a gaming journalist at this link: http://nohighscores.com/node/508

I have no idea whether or not this guy's experience is typical, but it was an interesting read.  As for the reviews here at MMORPG.COM, I'm old school.  I always found it more informative when various categories were rated, and then used to calculate an overall score.

If a game got a low overall score, I'd always check which categories seemed to hurt it the most.  If it was a category I didn't really care about, I'd still give the game a shot.

The categories also seem to give the review more objectivity imo.  I know when I'm involved in hiring people, we've used a grid to help us score the person's performance in the interview.  I find this helpful.  I may get a really good vibe from someone, but when I look at my grid, I see that they have no idea how to do the job.  I'm human, and without some distance and some objective criteria, my feelings definitely influence my assessments, whether I want them to or not.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Interesting article.  I was expecting yet another case of the media telling you that the media are important.

I was aware that publishers tried to pressure game media sources.  But telling them, the day you can post your review depends on how highly you rate it?  I didn't realize it went that far.

I guess the moral of the story is, don't buy a game on launch day, unless perhaps you're excited enough about it that you'd buy it anyway even if the reviews universally panned it as awful.  Rather, wait a while to find out if the game is actually any good, and then buy it.

 Yup, I totally agree.  I used to get game magazines, read the reviews, take some of their recommendations and buy games at release.  Over the years I've noticed that the reviews have become less and less reliable.  They often read more like P.R. pieces.  Lots of exclamation marks, and lots of words like "iconic and robust." 

Now, I simply don't buy games on release day.  I wait for the dust to settle so I can get some good information before I decide how to use my buying power.  That has served me well lately.

Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi

ArcAngel3, what's going on!

Good read. Forums are getting infested too. The poser to gamer ratio is slimming.

It's gotta be hard being in the media. What to do?

Nice seeing ya around again. Hope you've been well.

 Heya Fikus ^_^.  Good to hear from you too.  I've been well, thx for asking.  Btw, I want to give credit to a mutual online friend (Shayde) for finding this article and bringing it to my attention. 

 An excerpt from an interesting article:

Your highlighting a fundemental flaw in the game makes a lot of sense to me.  I think really that it's just the latest in a list of fundamental flaws people have been trying to highlight (e.g. chat system, pvp exploits).

If the endgame content is really difficult, and the option to grind for gear isn't there, and cash shops pop up to sell you the gear, that will smell like a money pit.  Not a pretty picture.

Originally posted by TheFur

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Originally posted by TheFur

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Originally posted by TheFur

@WSIMike

I know I did a quote on you, but most of that wasn't directed at you personally.  I went to everyone claiming that F2P is misleading and if ALL the content isn't 100% free it isn't free. I don't personally care for a cash shop either, but that doesn't make it an invalid and/or illegitamate business model. And it can be abused like any other business model.

I see no reason to spend alot of time, effort, and tax payer money to investigate an entire business model. The stickler is going to be the fact that alot of the offenders are overseas and have entirely different laws and standard for business practices. We can try and put political pressure on those foreign governments to change their ways, but I certainly don't feel right pushing our beliefs and standards on the rest of the world. As soon as we do, they will insist that we need to change ours. We have enough problems as it is to start bowing to the beliefs of other contries that are diametrically opposed to ours.

If you run across a F2P (or P2P)  that defrauds you for money there are appropiate law enforecement agencies that you can report them to. But to think that we have to power to subjectively take control/punish businesses and internet providers overseas means you don't understand law and international law at all.

As far as the "exploitation" , it is no different than the "impulse items" at your local supermarket or department store. I guess we need a government investigation of the local Walmart.

again, Most of that original "rant/tangant" wasn't directed at all of your comments. Alot of that was addressing those that were confusing F2P products with a whole company. And many had argued that it isn't free is they sell addtional content (product) as well.

As for the strawman comments, you didn't really knock out an fact, just expressed your personal opinion.

 Unfortunately many of the F2P games that have caused controversy are products of North American companies.  So, the whole idea that we might be trying to force our worldview on foreign cultures is a red herring.

name them...

 http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/20/26549.htm

http://www.engagedigital.com/2010/01/27/microsoft-points-subject-of-class-action-lawsuit/

And isn't this whole thread about Apple?  These are all American companies with controversy/legal issues related to virtual goods.  No need to look overseas at all.

I thought it was F2P models we were talking about. I am unimpressed and unswayed by both articles. The Microsoft one especially was brought by an obvious hack and will most likely be thrown out of court. He seems like nothing than a whiner with more money than sense.

And what is "Courthouse News? Their "About Us" link doesn't even work. IMO it isn't a reliable site.

try again.

 "Second Life (SL) is an online virtual world developed by Linden Lab which was launched on June 23, 2003. A number of free client programs called Viewers^[1][2] enable Second Life users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. " (from the wiki)

The controversy regarding second life is available on numerous websites.  The client is F2P.  No need for me to try again, and no point if you're simply going to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your point of view.  You can conduct your own research if you have a real interest.

And, as I pointed out, this whole thread is about Apple, an American company.  If you want to dismiss the entire thread, that's your prerogative. 

Originally posted by TheFur

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Originally posted by TheFur

@WSIMike

I know I did a quote on you, but most of that wasn't directed at you personally.  I went to everyone claiming that F2P is misleading and if ALL the content isn't 100% free it isn't free. I don't personally care for a cash shop either, but that doesn't make it an invalid and/or illegitamate business model. And it can be abused like any other business model.

I see no reason to spend alot of time, effort, and tax payer money to investigate an entire business model. The stickler is going to be the fact that alot of the offenders are overseas and have entirely different laws and standard for business practices. We can try and put political pressure on those foreign governments to change their ways, but I certainly don't feel right pushing our beliefs and standards on the rest of the world. As soon as we do, they will insist that we need to change ours. We have enough problems as it is to start bowing to the beliefs of other contries that are diametrically opposed to ours.

If you run across a F2P (or P2P)  that defrauds you for money there are appropiate law enforecement agencies that you can report them to. But to think that we have to power to subjectively take control/punish businesses and internet providers overseas means you don't understand law and international law at all.

As far as the "exploitation" , it is no different than the "impulse items" at your local supermarket or department store. I guess we need a government investigation of the local Walmart.

again, Most of that original "rant/tangant" wasn't directed at all of your comments. Alot of that was addressing those that were confusing F2P products with a whole company. And many had argued that it isn't free is they sell addtional content (product) as well.

As for the strawman comments, you didn't really knock out an fact, just expressed your personal opinion.

 Unfortunately many of the F2P games that have caused controversy are products of North American companies.  So, the whole idea that we might be trying to force our worldview on foreign cultures is a red herring.

name them...

 http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/20/26549.htm

http://www.engagedigital.com/2010/01/27/microsoft-points-subject-of-class-action-lawsuit/

And isn't this whole thread about Apple?  These are all American companies with controversy/legal issues related to virtual goods.  No need to look overseas at all.

Originally posted by Isane

I think its a fair cop get the FTC involved.

If someone wants to use the FTP tag for any game then under no circumstance should that game be allowed to take credit card information from a customer as part of the game set-up.

 Excellent point and very relevant to MMOs.  You used to login to a virtual world (MMO) go to a virtual store, pay virtual cash and receive virtual goods.  It was all part of the entertainment experience. 

Now, however, you login to a virtual world, go to a virtual store, and pay real cash for virtual goods.  Something very significant has changed. 

Also, after you pay real cash for your virtual item, the company that "sold" it to you immediately claims that the item you just bought has no monetary value, therefore your consumer rights are null and void. 

Anyone who can't see a number of problems with the new scenario should probably look harder.  Heh, well either that  or you're one of the people raking in the dough from the new scenario.  In which case I can understand you defending it so vigorously. 

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

 

 Here's a link to one presentation I saw re. RMT:

http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/virtual-goods-why-how-they-work

Awesome. Thank you for providing that. I watched that one and one other that was related to it, about the same topic... how to "monetize" players via virtual goods...

A few slides really tell the whole story and, pretty much, make the case for folks like myself who see the whole RMT/cash shop/virtual goods thing for what it is. Several of them reiterate statements I made earlier in this thread, and indeed in other threads on this topic... before I even ever saw the presentations. Again, it's right in people's faces... all they need to do is actually take off the "FREE!!"-colored goggles and see what these scheisters are really pulling with us.

I wish I could find it, as I've tried several times without success, but there's a video right on MMORPG.com of a panel they hosted with some folks in the industry. It's a 3 part series and I remember that Paul Barnett (Mythic) was one of the panelists. Anyway, at one point one of the panelists states, straight out, that mt's allow developers to monetize their players for far more than they could get with a $15 subscription. Again, he's summing it up in a sentence..

These people are not trying to provide fun, immersive and engaging virtual worlds for players to engage in that they'll want to stick with month after month.... No, no. They're analyzing statistics and figuring out the best virtual goods to place in front of people to "monetize" them more effectively, for a better return. It also illustrates why F2P MMOs are designed entirely differently at the most basic level. The main goal of their design is to figure out the best way to get more people to open their wallets more often.

This is the kind of crap they're pulling with adults, every day, all day long. It's no surprise at all that a child would fall for it hook, line and sinker such as the one in Aihoshi's column. The child at least has the excuse of not being able to see or understand what's going on, or the mechanisms behind it.

Call me crazy, but I prefer to play games and would much prefer game developers go back to, you know... developing games that people will want to play. I have no interest in being part of someone's attempts to "more effectively monetize"...  also known as nickel and diming. Just provide me a fun and engaging virtual world to spend my time in with plenty to do, and I'll happily pay the initial box fee and my monthly sub. No "virtual goods to make me feel socially special" required.

The really sad post-script to all this, is that there are people who will see the evidence, see what's going on, see how these "games" are designed from the ground up to exploit people (as shown in the presentation you linked, and elsewhere), and still argue that there's nothing shady going on. It's like the people who continue to argue that RMT gold farmers are doing nothing wrong and it's no one else's business if they want to sell gold in a game. Meanwhile the farmers work for RMT companies who consistently work to get keyloggers on to people's systems so they can compromise their accounts, sell off their gear, empty out their bank vaults, delete their characters, etc... to obtain more gold to sell to the folks who continue to argue that it's their business if they buy gold and it's not affecting anyone else.

I fully expect a follow-up article to this one doing some damage control by re-asserting the whole "people who knock it are just closed-minded and don't understand F2P games".  Because, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, that's really the case, right Mr. Aihoshi?

Yes I've read interviews with other "industry leaders" where they talk about how to essentially soak people via RMT business models.  As you say, their primary focus hasn't been providing entertainment or a quality gaming experience.  It's been how to hook people with their business model and take them for as much as they possibly can.  Nasty, nasty business. 

If someone is unwise enough to take the bait, are they responsible for their actions?  Well, we're always responsible for the choices we make, but so are those who go to great lengths to bait the hook and reel us in.  Should the RMT industry be completely unmonitored and unregulated?  If it is, I guess it would be the only industry like it in our free market economy.  Business transactions need parameters that can be legally enforced, or someone's going to get badly screwed.

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

 

 If you saw the training material for F2P devs, you'd be even more convinced of your position.  They are instructed in how to hook people into a game, create dependence on virtual items for gameplay, relationship-building and even self-worth, and then monetize the crap out of these items--particularly targetting their most avid (i.e. addicted) users.  I highlighted this in another thread, and provided a link to an actual training seminar.

I'd be interested in seeing that seminar.

Though, honestly... it really doesn't take a genius to see through the F2P/Microtransaction model. I've played them, I've seen and experienced the diffrence in how they're set up first-hand; the differences in the basic design and in how the games "flow". I've seen how the various obstacles, speed-bumps and overall inconveniences I started to notice building up as I progressed all had convenient "solutions" for sale in the cash shop... xp potions, auto-regen MP and HP charms... and so forth. I noticed how regularly those items were advertised.

I mean, it's *right in your face* what they're pulling. Maybe some people are just so "dazzled" by the word "FREE!" that they don't bother to look any deeper? I really don't know.

Thing is, I don't consider myself any smarter than the average person. I am, perhaps, a bit more skeptical when I see the word "FREE!" flashed in front of my face, and not so willing to take it at face value without digging deeper to see what's really going on behind the curtain.

To that end, I've done my homework, done the math and have reached my conclusion on my own. F2P/Cash Shops are a sleazy, exploitive payment system that are designed solely to milk customers for all they can, as often as they can, without adding anything of actual value to the gameplay experience. Thing is, I'm sure that even with all I've discovered on my own about these shams, there's far more I haven't.

... and that's not even going into how having a cash shop changes and, in my opinion, degrades the fundamental game design of such a MMO. That's a whole other topic for another thread that I could easily go off on.

Note: To those who play the games casually enough to not feel the "need" to buy items, or perhaps simply refuse to... Awesome. It's great that you can do that and still get an enjoyable experience out of it. Believe me, you're not the people the developers are trying to hook. In that way, I obviously don't include such people in my category of people being suckered by this so-called "payment model".

The only games I support in their setup are LoTRO and DDO, and that's only because they offer the option of a subscription, where you can pay your monthly fee, play the game, and not have to worry about cash shops. As I understand it, their micro-transactions are more of an "a la carte" setup for unlocking certain content... so they're not even set up like traditional cash-shops work in many Eastern-developed MMOs. Pay for the content you want to play.. quests, etc... Skip the content you don't. That's a fair system to me. EQ2 still offers subs in some manner as I understand it as well.

 Here's a link to one presentation I saw re. RMT:

http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/virtual-goods-why-how-they-work

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by ZeddOverkill

Originally posted by lizardbones 

---

Originally posted by PhelimReagh
LOL. The subscription-only folks are going to print out, bronze and frame this news item...

---

Except...it doesn't really have anything to do with free to play and everything to do with mobile applications targetted at consumers who may not have any idea that they are spending real world money while in a game.

 

 Agreeing with lizardbones. Everyone saw "F2P" and we get the whole "F2P vs P2P MMO" crew in here. This was all mobile application stuff, which have different ways of buying items and such IN THE GAME, rather than having to go elsewhere to get currency. Simmer down, kids. No one saying they're going after F2P MMOs (whether you think they should or not).

I reiterate the points made before - parents need to RAISE THEIR KIDS. 'Nuff said.

Maybe you should be asking Richard why he posted the article, then in his "Free Zone" section of this website, where he writes about the Free To Play MMO market. Maybe you should ask Richard why he chose the title he did for his column this week? Then perhaps you should (re-)read the article and see where he touches on how the situation could affect F2P MMOs as well.

You're knocking people for actually discussing something relevant to the article. Seems your perspective is the one out of place here.

That said - your attempt at splitting hairs to distance F2P/Cash Shop MMOs notwithstanding - the concept is the same - be it on a iPad or in a MMO. Both systems are designed to nickel and dime people consistently. Both systems are designed to exploit human impulse - fueling and feeding on people's desire to "have something now instead of later", a few bucks at a time.

Dangle someting in front of someone that you know they'd want, offer it to them for "just a few dollars", make it super easy for them to obtain with only a few taps of a button and, bam... easy sale. Same thing in a F2P MMO... design some obstacle or speed bump deliberately into the game (slow leveling curve, limited storage space, slow travel times, etc...), then dangle a convenient "solution" to it in front of people for "just a few dollars", make it easy for them to obtain - via pre-purchased store points, for example - and bam... few mouse clicks later, sale. Stock your cash shop with a number of such items to entice people with and you have microtransactions in a nutshell.

The apps, and the games that work this way are designed to target this impulse, and watch the $$$ roll in. It is a dishonest practice, in either case, and it was only a matter of time before something more high profile such as this brought it to a head, and now it's going to get the attention it should probably have gotten long ago.

Want to know what's to blame in a word? Greed. It's the greed of the type of people who would utilize a system like this to milk every nickel they can from every person they can... however they can.

It's also heartening to see more people finally getting past the honeymoon phase with the "Free to Pay" system, and seeing it for the sleazy, dishonest and exploitive system it is.

I always have and always will maintain... P2P MMOs that give you full access to everything in the game for a flat monthly fee is an honest way to go about it. The developers have to earn their players sub money month after month by continuing to provide an experience players feel worthwhile, month after month. You pay the same as everyone else, you get access to the same as everyone else, everyone is catered to equally... how much or how little time an individual has to play is that individual's concern.. not the developers'.

 If you saw the training material for F2P devs, you'd be even more convinced of your position.  They are instructed in how to hook people into a game, create dependence on virtual items for gameplay, relationship-building and even self-worth, and then monetize the crap out of these items--particularly targetting their most avid (i.e. addicted) users.  I highlighted this in another thread, and provided a link to an actual training seminar.

Originally posted by TheFur

@WSIMike

I know I did a quote on you, but most of that wasn't directed at you personally.  I went to everyone claiming that F2P is misleading and if ALL the content isn't 100% free it isn't free. I don't personally care for a cash shop either, but that doesn't make it an invalid and/or illegitamate business model. And it can be abused like any other business model.

I see no reason to spend alot of time, effort, and tax payer money to investigate an entire business model. The stickler is going to be the fact that alot of the offenders are overseas and have entirely different laws and standard for business practices. We can try and put political pressure on those foreign governments to change their ways, but I certainly don't feel right pushing our beliefs and standards on the rest of the world. As soon as we do, they will insist that we need to change ours. We have enough problems as it is to start bowing to the beliefs of other contries that are diametrically opposed to ours.

If you run across a F2P (or P2P)  that defrauds you for money there are appropiate law enforecement agencies that you can report them to. But to think that we have to power to subjectively take control/punish businesses and internet providers overseas means you don't understand law and international law at all.

As far as the "exploitation" , it is no different than the "impulse items" at your local supermarket or department store. I guess we need a government investigation of the local Walmart.

again, Most of that original "rant/tangant" wasn't directed at all of your comments. Alot of that was addressing those that were confusing F2P products with a whole company. And many had argued that it isn't free is they sell addtional content (product) as well.

As for the strawman comments, you didn't really knock out an fact, just expressed your personal opinion.

 Unfortunately many of the F2P games that have caused controversy are products of North American companies.  So, the whole idea that we might be trying to force our worldview on foreign cultures is a red herring.

Virtual impulse items are not the same as "real" impulse items because in the real world my environment cannot be artificially manipulated to increase demand.

Laws against exploitation, defrauding etc. have been side-stepped by companies claiming that they do not apply because goods and services purchased are "virtual" and as a result--they claim--have no real monetary value.  This point in particular is likely something the FTC and legislators want to resolve.  If goods "sold" to customers are virtual, does that really mean the customer has no rights?  Some North American companies in the EULAs say yes.  Customers, of course, say no.  Someone needs to mediate this dispute, and this particular dispute falls under the FTC's mandate.

Originally posted by TheFur

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by ZeddOverkill

Originally posted by lizardbones 

---

Originally posted by PhelimReagh
LOL. The subscription-only folks are going to print out, bronze and frame this news item...

---

Except...it doesn't really have anything to do with free to play and everything to do with mobile applications targetted at consumers who may not have any idea that they are spending real world money while in a game.

 

 Agreeing with lizardbones. Everyone saw "F2P" and we get the whole "F2P vs P2P MMO" crew in here. This was all mobile application stuff, which have different ways of buying items and such IN THE GAME, rather than having to go elsewhere to get currency. Simmer down, kids. No one saying they're going after F2P MMOs (whether you think they should or not).

I reiterate the points made before - parents need to RAISE THEIR KIDS. 'Nuff said.

Maybe you should be asking Richard why he posted the article, then in his "Free Zone" section of this website, where he writes about the Free To Play MMO market. Maybe you should ask Richard why he chose the title he did for his column this week? Then perhaps you should (re-)read the article and see where he touches on how the situation could affect F2P MMOs as well.

You're knocking people for actually discussing something relevant to the article. Seems your perspective is the one out of place here.

That said - your attempt at splitting hairs to distance F2P/Cash Shop MMOs notwithstanding - the concept is the same - be it on a iPad or in a MMO. Both systems are designed to nickel and dime people consistently. Both systems are designed to exploit human impulse - fueling and feeding on people's desire to "have something now instead of later", a few bucks at a time.

Dangle someting in front of someone that you know they'd want, offer it to them for "just a few dollars", make it super easy for them to obtain with only a few taps of a button and, bam... easy sale. Same thing in a F2P MMO... design some obstacle or speed bump deliberately into the game (slow leveling curve, limited storage space, slow travel times, etc...), then dangle a convenient "solution" to it in front of people for "just a few dollars", make it easy for them to obtain - via pre-purchased store points, for example - and bam... few mouse clicks later, sale. Stock your cash shop with a number of such items to entice people with and you have microtransactions in a nutshell.

The apps, and the games that work this way are designed to target this impulse, and watch the $$$ roll in. It is a dishonest practice, in either case, and it was only a matter of time before something more high profile such as this brought it to a head, and now it's going to get the attention it should probably have gotten long ago.

Want to know what's to blame in a word? Greed. It's the greed of the type of people who would utilize a system like this to milk every nickel they can from every person they can... however they can.

It's also heartening to see more people finally getting past the honeymoon phase with the "Free to Pay" system, and seeing it for the sleazy, dishonest and exploitive system it is.

I always have and always will maintain... P2P MMOs that give you full access to everything in the game for a flat monthly fee is an honest way to go about it. The developers have to earn their players sub money month after month by continuing to provide an experience players feel worthwhile, month after month. You pay the same as everyone else, you get access to the same as everyone else, everyone is catered to equally... how much or how little time an individual has to play is that individual's concern.. not the developers'.

yada,yada,yada Greedy company bla,bla,bla not my fault for buying it. 

That is all I hear out of the anti-F2P section. Well if you won't take responsibility for your own (or your kids) actions, then you are the problem that keeps them in business. I am sure there are some very shady F2Ps out there, but for the most part they are just COMPANIES trying to make a profit on THEIR hard work on designing a game.

I see no issue with the business model as a whole and have played a couple and was well aware of what it was costing me to PURCHASE extras in the game. I also CHOSE to either make the purchase or not. Some times I would refill/renew items and sometimes I would not depending on MY budget. But at NO time did I feel I was being ripped off by the COMPANY that was providing the F2P. The game was part of that companies product line and I CHOSE to buy some of it and CHOSE not to buy others. If you want to discuss GREED, lets look at COMPANIES that charge for the game box, then a sub fee, AND an item mall...I have more issue with that, then with F2P models.

Take some responsibility for your self and your kids. I you don't like F2P models, then don't play them, but don't blame the COMPANY for offering you a product that you can play for free and then offering other products that you can purchase. It is very hypocritical that YOU don't work for free, but expect game designers to.

 I don't think what some people are saying, and what you are hearing them say are the same thing tbh.  Are people responsible for their choices?  Yes.  Are parents responsible to supervise their children with regard to their online activities?  Yes.  Are some F2P models child-friendly and upfront about the true nature of the services people are purchasing?  Yes.  Should developers who work for companies that run their business this way get an honest days pay for an honest days work?  Yes, absolutely.  Hopefully you feel that some of your points are being acknowledged here?

At the same time, do some RMT games use misleading language when discussing the so-called purchase of virtual goods?  I think so.  Do some RMT games intentionally manipulate people to spend more in the item shop by tinkering with the game mechanics to artificially stimulate demand?  Probably.  Do some RMT games take customers money and give them essentially nothing in return? (e.g. the item may or may not work, it may be deleted at any time, it may be modified at any time, if it is you're totally S.O.L..)  Absolutely.  Do some RMT games ask children to agree to contracts that they can't possibly understand, and do some of the terms relate to the use of a parents credit card?  Unfortunately, yes they most certainly do.

The problem, as I see it, is not the F2P RMT model.  As someone pointed out no two RMT games are exactly alike.  Some can be very upfront, non-manipulative and child friendly.  Others seem to be quite the opposite.  If the FTC intervenes, they will be targetting games/services/companies that give RMT a bad name by their unethical business practices.  Personally, I don't understand why any gamer would want to defend such practices, and I have no problem with the FTC dropping the hammer if need be.

Originally posted by wfSeg

Those F2P with cash shops that sells items based on chance are basically online casinos (with no payout). Just keep pouring in real cash for a chance at getting something. Case in point, Atlantica's boxes. That's gambling. Those needs to be stopped.

Then there are those F2P that offers real content that can be unlocked with cash. In LoTRO, DDO, and Wizard101 people are buying content in game. So it's like buying a DLC for a single player game. Those F2P's are doing legitimate business.

 Excellent point.  There are huge differences between F2P games.  Some are very consumer friendly.  In those games you know what you're paying for, you get what you pay for, there is no gambling real money on a random chance of winning a virtual item and in some cases (e.g. pirate galaxy) if there is a problem with a virtual item you do have rights to a refund.  You also get a refund if the item is changed before your limited license period expires.

F2P games that are run ethically have absolutely no worries, imo.  On the other hand, some games have apparently been built on a foundation of getting gamers hooked and then screwing them every which way they can, consumer rights be damned.  I won't be surprised if the companies behind these games are targetted for some form of legal action.

Frankly it's been a long time coming, but I think other issues have been a priority--e.g. banking scandals and the near collapse of the global economy.

Based on everything I've read in this thread (some good reading btw) players do not believe that the NGE was an isolated incident.

One of the main problems Smed actually admitted to once was not listening to players.  I'll agree with him on that one.  If anyone suggests that NGE was one, uncharacteristic mistake that a few disturbed players refuse to forgive....you're still not listening.

Here are a few questions I'd have for providers of F2P (i.e. RMT) games:

Do you really ask minors to click on EULAs that are written by your lawyers using language written by and for adults?

Do you really accept credit card transactions from minors without having a mechanism for card holder validation?

Do you really "sell" "items" at an RMT "shop" and then claim that no one has actually purchased anything?

Do you sell limited licenses to use virtual services but disguise this in language that is misleading to the customer?

If you "sell" a virtual item, and it doesn't function as advertised, do you refuse the customer a refund?

If you "sell" a virtual item, and then immediately thereafter delete or devalue it, do you refuse the customer a refund?

Do you have people purchase a random chance of winning a virtual item without following the regulations for lotteries and sweepstakes?

Do you really think that a EULA is a legally binding contract when it can be changed at any time by the service provider without any notification to the customer?

Did a company rep really say that people are purchasing virtual land in your game, and then did you turn around and claim that ownership was never implied?

Did you take millions of dollars from customers via some or all of the above practices, and did these customers then barrage us with countless complaints by telephone, fax and/or email so that we now have to waste tax payers dollars investigating you?

Do I think the FTC might have similar questions.  LOL, yeah.  I think they might :)

EULAs written by lawyers ask children to click on them acknowledging that they understand the terms of use.  This, imo, is unconsionable.  Children cannot understand what they are allegedly agreeing to.  Many of the terms refer to the use of a parent's credit card.  One FTP game had children agree that any use of the credit card was "authorized."  To be quite blunt, children aren't able to made that decision...and they should not be asked to.  In contrast another FTP game has parents make all the financial decisions/transactions.  Children are not asked to agree to the EULA, they are told to get a parent. 

Some of the games appear to exploit a child's naivety intentionally to access parental funds.  If that is in fact the case.  It should...and will be addressed by law enforcement agencies like the FTC.

Richard this has been a long time coming as complaints about virtual item sales/licensing have been piling up, and law-suits have been mounting.  Also, games like online gambling are extensively regulated and have repeatedly been in the news.  If you're not aware of this history, I'd encourage you to do some research.

P.S. Consumers and their advocates have repeatedly talked to service providers about the manner in which virtual economies can--and often do--side-step consumer rights legislation.  This screams for intervention...intervention that would not be necessary if certain companies held themselves to some very basic ethical standards. 

When City of Heroes put sweeping changes to PvP on their test servers, they received 300 pages (not posts) of feedback explaining how negatively the changes would impact gameplay and player progress.  They didn't listen.  As a result, I watched PvP die on 8 of 10 servers.  Not only that, but the overall populations on those servers seemed greatly diminished.

When StarWars Galaxies failed to listen to players regarding sweeping revamps known as the Combat Upgrade and New Game Enhancements, they lost probably tens of thousands of players, and many of their servers were shut down due to low populations.

In both of these examples, those expressing concerns were labelled a vocal minority, and their views were dismissed.  Sadly, this did not help either game.

Having said that, I too have seen people who seem to enjoy creating forum drama more than playing the associated MMO.  What I find unfortunate is that MMO developers/producers seem unable to determine which feedback is valid, and which is drama for its own sake.

If they hired a qualitative research analyst to sift through their forums and polls, they might screw this up a lot less.  In my experience many MMO companies may (or may not) know how to code good games.  They don't, however, seem highly skilled at working with people. 

Originally posted by hayes303

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Originally posted by hayes303

I think that SOE is just another company, no better no worse. They screwed up on SWG, but how much of that was SOE and how much was LucasArts still isn't clear to me.

I didn't like how they dummied EQ and EQ2 up, but that was more out of a misplaced sense of the customer knowing best (in MMORPGs, that is almost never the case).

Matrix Online was a piece of crap. When they got it it was garbage and when it died the fans should have thanked SOE for fishing that thing out of the trash and letting them have a more drawn out goodbye. Vanguard was never rushed out the door by SOE, they were only distrbuting it. Sigil rushed it out due to the fact they were broke. Only after launch did SOE outright buy Vanguard. It would have been wonderful if they had done something with it, but they chose to spend their investment money somewhere else.

Is SOE a great company? Probably not, are they any worse than Blizzard or EA/Bioware? Probably not. Most of this endless SOE hate comes from hurt feelings and fond memoeries for a game that died 5 yrs ago. I find little of the conspiracy SOE hate based in reality.

I dunno Hayes, when I read your comments, and compare them to the experiences of most of the other respondents, I see a big difference.  As for Vanguard, SOE was the publisher, and it appears they set the release date, even though the development house needed about 3 more months for a successful launch.  Here's a quote to that effect:

"The game was released before it was ready, leading to:

• Content was low for high-level players, and spotty even in some lower-level areas. Much planned high level content was not included at launch.
• Large numbers of bugs and performance issues, which make gameplay difficult, and on some systems rendering the game virtually unplayable.
• At release, performance was poor on many systems, including some high-end configurations. For example there was no anti-aliasing, and anisotropic filtering support was buggy.

In April 2007 Brad McQuaid, CEO of Sigil Games Online, addressed these issues and provided some  explanations:

'Had I had the financial resources, ability to place the product later, etc. I would have given us about 3 more months to get more polish in, more high level content in, and to distance ourselves from the WoW expansion.'"

 From this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard:_Saga_of_Heroes

 

One of the big complaints about SWG has always been the early release with serious bugs, issues and missing content.  Judging from the quote above, it seems that SWG isn't the only SOE game that had these issues.   Suggesting that SWG is unique, and the only source of player frustration seems simply incorrect.

 

From what I'm reading, it also seems incorrect to suggest that NGE (5 years ago) is the only thing that got under players' skin in SWG.  A lot of people seem to be saying that they felt repeatedly burned by a company that rushed out buggy content, didn't listen to player feedback, didn't do what they said they were going to, and gave them all sorts of nasty surprises. 

 

As for comparison's with Blizzard, I can't help thinking of the way they listened to player feedback and cancelled proposed changes to their forums.  If SOE had listened that well to player feedback about numerous changes to SWG (Combat Upgrade and NGE to name just two) I believe they might be just as successful as the competition.  Unfortunately, it seems they didn't listen, and their popularity plummetted as a result.

 

Smed himself commented in an interview that SOE committed a cardinal sin when they didn't listen to their players.  I have yet to read Blizzard's CEO make a statement like that.  I also have yet to see a mass player exodus from WoW.  Blizz seems to do at least two things that SOE seems to struggle with: 1) put out an abundance of highly polished content, 2) respond favourably to player feedback, even if it means changing their plans for the game or service.

 I see your point, however, specifically with regards to Vanguard and McQuaid's comments, SOE was co-publisher at launch. Brad McQuaid and his lack of buisness skill and Microsoft jumping ship was more at fault in Vanguard's horrible launch than SOE. Sigil went broke and launched. they had avoided any relationship with SOE until Microsoft dropped out as the publisher because of McQuaid's past with SOE. Your McQuaid quote was dead on, but in this context the assumption that SOE was the source of the money is wrong. http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=561 is a interesting article to read, it states that SOE was hands off on the game until it train wrecked.

 

I still play Vanguard today, and enjoy it. I wish SOE would pour some cash to it, but its not happening. Luckily its a big enough game to keep a guy going even without xpacs.

 

I never said that NGE was the only thing they did to that game, but it was the worst. Blizzard didn't change their forums, but they have made mountains of unpopluar changes to WoW that players hated. As to bugs, I bought WoW at launch, Tabula Rasa, Aion, City of Heroes/Villians, Fallen Earth.......All these games have suffered from bugs and problems. To attribute that to a SOE plot, seems a bit silly to me. SWG even before the changes was not truely in any shape to compete with the larger games. Initial box sales were more based on the IP than the content. SOE was horrible at hacking the game, no one is denying this, but I stated that I am still unsure of how much blame should LucasArts get as well (George Lucas is a psycho when it comes to protecting his right to be the one that destroys his greatest work).

 

Smed did say that, but so has every other buisness that has ever pissed their customers off and wanted to keep them (including blizzard). I'm not justifying what SOe has done, or them as a company, but like I said, I think a lot of the hate that floats in this forum is not neccesarily rational. A lot of it is a emotional response to what happened to SWG.

 So nice to read such a well thought-out response :) Thanks.  I think we agree on the SWG deal, that NGE wasn't the only thing that went wrong, just that it happened to be the worst.  Are people's perceptions influenced by the worst thing that happened to them?  I'm sure they are, that's only human imo.  That's why companies should avoid scenarios like the NGE.  They tend to be unforgettable...as much as the company might hope everyone will forget.

At the same time, what I think, and what others seem to see is that NGE wasn't really all that uncharacteristic of SOE.  They've surprised people before that with very unpopular decisions, and they've done so again afterwards.  I've seen some posts and articles that seem to suggest that SOE gets bad press simply because people refuse to get over that one mistake they made in one of their titles.  This theory seems to cast SOE in a favourable light, at the expense of their customers' credibility.  I simply don't buy it, and it doesn't seem to fit with others' experience.

Likewise regarding titles like Vanguard, Matrix and SWG, I don't buy the notion that SOE's partners screwed them up, and that SOE was somehow an innocent by-stander.  That seems like a spin-job that doesn't fit with others' experiences and observations.  Brenlo of SOE, for example, told me personally that NGE was 100% SOE's decision.  He posted this on the public forums, and people still try shift blame to LucasArts.  That truly amazes me.

Simply put, I think that people have bad feelings towards SOE because of a number of bad experiences across a number of their titles.  Sure NGE was probably the worst example of this, but I don't think it was by any means an isolated event, as some seem to suggest. 

If SOE really wants to avoid bad word-of-mouth, it seems to me that they need to become experts at releasing polished games, listening to customer feedback, following through on what they say they're going to do, and avoiding nasty surprises.  Pointing fingers at business partners and suggesting that their players are unreasonable crack-pots doesn't seem like a winning strategy.  If anything it just alienates people more, and generates more negative discussion.