Anyone else worried about the Micro transactions that are looming?

korwinthale

@spinedoc Exactly how I feel.

Jitaki

Consumers are strange. If it's available, people will buy it. People will often pay for silly things, instead of non-silly things.

I learned this running a Minecraft server. People didn't want to pay 10 bucks to get Creative mode (the ability to fly and use whatever blocks you wanted, unlimited, etc). But, every kid and his dog swarmed me to spend 10 bucks on the ability to put a block on your head as a hat. Seriously.

Honestly, micro transactions for vanity items probably make more money for these companies than the subscriptions themselves.

Another example,

I play WoW, I pay for my account, my mothers account, and two friends accounts. I also have a 5th account I'm doing RAF with. On top of that, in the last month, I've spent a little over $300 on Character transfers, mounts, and pets for my friends.

Everybody who has disposable income, disposes of it. And with it being an option, and a vanity item, you're not forced to buy it.

So what if they offer a fancy horse on the store? You can get a horse in game too. It's not the same horse, but do you really *need* the fancy one from the store? Absolutely not. But, if you want it bad enough, you will buy it. If you can't afford it, you won't buy it.

I don't really know what else to say, its just how it works really.

GJVah

nhisso wrote: »

lol "go troll elsewhere".

I'm not trolling. This is just more entitled, whiny gamer non sense. YOU don't want to buy something, don't buy it. You can get your own horse, in game. Sounds to me like you think something extra should be free because you pay for subscription, and that is non sense. It would be different if there were no horses for in game gold.

As for the post from GJVah, WOW! Talk about b.s.. You seem to be the clueless one. "they're testing our patience" and blah blah blah.

Neither of you seem to understand what "pay to win" means. And it's sickening that people call businesses greedy for offering items for purchase. An entire race was locked behind a playwall? I'm sorry, what entitles you to that race? If you whiny, entitled little gamers don't like "DLC", don't buy it. It's that simple. Ill sympathize and agree with you when they start offering the ability to pay for gold and leveling. THAT is pay to win. Buying a freakin horse, of which other models are offered IN GAME for IN GAME-earned gold, and having access to a race that others do not have is not pay to win. Grow up.

1. Selling a horse for real money that costs in game money IS a problem because you're paying to shorten the time it takes to get the horse. Most horses are in the 42,000 range. I'm lvl 14, and I have earned about 4000 in game in 3 days. Do the math.

2. DLC is downloadable content, that should be developed AFTER the full game is out and ready. Everything else labeled as "DLC" is simply stuff cut out of the final game to generate more money form sheep like you (and me of course, I did get the imperial edition, not happy about it, but I had NO CHOICE, SINCE I CANNOT BUY THE IMPERIAL RACE WITH IN GAME GOLD).

3. Kids like you is why they can continue to do stuff like this, get a grip.

Viiqupaen

GaBacon wrote: »

It's just fluff man. like adding extra pickles to your hamburger for 50 cents more.

As long as people can't paste this fluff everywhere. I don't want TES:O to taste like pickles.

Distrobomb

Worry about the now, words to live by

jmido8

Imo, if there's a monthly fee, everything should be accessible in game, whether it's vanity or not. Of course, this is entirely up to the company. There's no law about this kind of thing. Sure, it's bad PR but games with huge followings can afford to care a little less about their consumers and more about the money.

On the other hand, if all the micro-transaction items are available in game, that's fine. I don't care if someone pays to get a vanity item a little earlier than me, just as long as I can get it without spending more real cash.

Desmadona

Micro-transactions always bother me in subscription-based games. They're expected in F2P games, but paying a subscription is supposed to mean getting all the cool stuff for a monthly fee.

I'm sad, too, because I was checking out the Palomino a couple of days ago thinking It was going to be mine. I guess not 'cause, while money is no issue for me, it's a matter of principle.

Games that are obviously too concerned about their bottom line usually don't get my money for very long. Fortunately for this one, though, my husband is a total fanboi.

korwinthale

@jmido8 yes but it stinks of scary at launch lol

TheGrandAlliance

Yes; to answer the thread's premise.

Although it appears to be that 15 MillionUSD/month, plus under your logic 60Million on box sales, remember not all of the money they get back to ZeniMax due to distribution, taxes, server maintance, and so forth.

This game probably costs more then 100Million USD to make if not 150 something if in line with other MMO's so they would have to hold out a year in order to break even.

Thus the game wont' go F2P before that time. After that point it will only go F2P if the subs fall off a cliff. Content requires money guys and you have to pay for stuff you know.


Now... concerning Microtransactions? Most evil of course but when it comes to 15 USD/month it is justified as long as the content matches.

Qutayba

I'm not a fan of microtransactions, but since this is just another skin for something you can purchase with in-game gold anyway, I can just ignore it.

Trevyn

The current practice of a cash shop that they are employing is a normal and widely accepted one. The only thing we as a community must do, is to be preemptive in letting the developers and publisher of ESO know that we as a community do not want to see the cash shop evolve into the Pay to win type of service that has ruined so many games and driven many of us to ESO in the first place.

Here are some examples of acceptable cash shop items that I don't think anyone would mind ZoS selling.

Horses with stats that do not exceed what can be obtained in game through fair play.

Vanity pets that do not have any bonus functions.

Armor skins with no stats that can be equipped on a character in much the same fashion as wearing a disguise but offer no ability to pass by mobs unaffected.

Unique Titles only offered via cash shop that do not give any bonus in game.

Skill animation packs that can either change the color and or look of skills and animations but not alter the core properties of said skills.

Experience boost rings that are limited in the percentage it boosts, do not require two individual players and can only be purchased by players with either a max level toon already or close to max. In addition having it work only up to a certain level is another way of making sure it can't be abused to give an unfair advantage.

Alternate skin recipe craft packs, for example if you are able to make Generic lvl 20 axe a, the craft pack would enable you to make Unique lvl 20 axe b that would have the exact same stats the only difference would be a change in skin. These crafts could be limited in number of crafts or not.

While I understand the idea of a cash shop is scary to some, I also realize that a cash shop can help to generate extra funds thus increasing a company's ability to delver more content to the community.

Trevyn-

Gohlar

Trevyn wrote: »

The current practice of a cash shop that they are employing is a normal and widely accepted one. The only thing we as a community must do, is to be preemptive in letting the developers and publisher of ESO know that we as a community do not want to see the cash shop evolve into the Pay to win type of service that has ruined so many games and driven many of us to ESO in the first place.

Here are some examples of acceptable cash shop items that I don't think anyone would mind ZoS selling.

Horses with stats that do not exceed what can be obtained in game through fair play.

Vanity pets that do not have any bonus functions.

Armor skins with no stats that can be equipped on a character in much the same fashion as wearing a disguise but offer no ability to pass by mobs unaffected.

Unique Titles only offered via cash shop that do not give any bonus in game.

Skill animation packs that can either change the color and or look of skills and animations but not alter the core properties of said skills.

Experience boost rings that are limited in the percentage it boosts, do not require two individual players and can only be purchased by players with either a max level toon already or close to max. In addition having it work only up to a certain level is another way of making sure it can't be abused to give an unfair advantage.

Alternate skin recipe craft packs, for example if you are able to make Generic lvl 20 axe a, the craft pack would enable you to make Unique lvl 20 axe b that would have the exact same stats the only difference would be a change in skin. These crafts could be limited in number of crafts or not.

While I understand the idea of a cash shop is scary to some, I also realize that a cash shop can help to generate extra funds thus increasing a company's ability to delver more content to the community.

Trevyn-

Once the game goes F2P, sure. But all of that in a paid game WITH a sub? Locking animations and art assets behind paywalls? Ridiculous.

XXII

So long as they don't do limited time stuff, I'm fine with it. I'm a sucker for limited stuff and usually end up broke at the end of the month. lol

However, the notion that we should have everything since we pay a sub; I do quite agree, and it's a shame that we don't get everything. Whatever. It irks me, but not enough for me to be mad about anything.

korwinthale

@Trevyn I have to agree with @Gohlar, While I do see your point and agree to an extent some of your examples were unacceptable if we are paying a sub in my opinion.

nimbli

I do not want any type of cash store. I hate them in EQ and EQ2, the games I play. My kids also (we are a gaming family) play this MMO called "Wizard's 101" that has a cash store. The cash store IS the reason for the game. Way too early to tell if this is the same, but I just hate 'em all now. It's overdone and unwelcome.

siledre

horses aren't really a necessity in my opinion, I've always like to travel by foot anyway since I grab ever node I pass, if I need to get somewhere fast I will use the gate travel. As for the "hey why can't I have what they have" complaint, you are in the game for the wrong reason if it's just to keep up with others that have things you don't. I'm here to have fun, not worry that someone is buying more stuff than me.

Trevyn

korwinthale wrote: »

@Trevyn I have to agree with @Gohlar, While I do see your point and agree to an extent some of your examples were unacceptable if we are paying a sub in my opinion.

@korwinthale Which examples are you referring to?
I fully understand that we are speaking hypothetically and neither of us are right or wrong, with that said maybe we can begin here working on a community driven movement for an accepted cash shop.

Trevyn-

korwinthale

@Trevyn , well for instance new pretty spell effects, or super cool armor skins, or experience buffing potions/rings/ what have you. I personally feel it's just wrong to ask someone whom is paying a subscription to the game to pay more for content in order to support content that you are going to make them pay for... It just seems to be circular logic. I find it disturbing and just think we already are paying the subscription and supporting their company all this does is allow them to double charge you for what you have essentially already paid for.

Trevyn

@korwinthale I can understand that, I myself not to fond of those ideas how ever they seem to be the highest generators of revenue when dealing with games that incorporate a cash shop service. I would honestly rather have those than some worse examples.
When writing my post it was me choosing the lesser evil so to say.

Hopefully ZoS doesn't do that, they could do what Blizzard has done and stuck with Vanity pets and mounts.
I just fear they will use the DLC argument as justification for putting unnecessary items in the shop.

Trevyn-

Thete

I already bought a horse; what's the difference? As long as you can't buy top end gear or other things that make a material difference to serious players, I don't see the problem. If you don't want to buy the stuff, don't buy it.

korwinthale

@Trevyn Funny you mentioned Blizzard
eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-25-blizzard-explains-USD60-cost-of-world-of-warcraft-level-90-character-boost

I have long since quit playing that steaming pile of rhino crap but when I saw this I was floored.

Trevyn

korwinthale wrote: »

@Trevyn Funny you mentioned Blizzard
eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-25-blizzard-explains-USD60-cost-of-world-of-warcraft-level-90-character-boost

I have long since quit playing that steaming pile of rhino crap but when I saw this I was floored.

@korwinthale‌ There is some logic in what they said but we all know it's done to generate revenue lol. Just another reason I am glad I no longer play WoW.

Up till that point they had a shining example of what a cash shop should be.

Just another prime example of how nothing and no one is infallible.

Trevyn-

Napkins

I think guilds wars 2 proved that you don't need a sub fee to make a successful game. They release a DLC type patch once every 2 weeks. All this support coming from micro transactions.
The actual server maintenance costs so little now that asking for a sub fee is just greed for more money. (see WoW past few years)

Korah_Eaglecry

As long as the Cash Shop doesnt

• Take precedence over steady content flow. ie Longer then normal periods of time without content while Cash Shop is continuously being updated.
• Items in Cash Shop remain of the vanity/services rendered variety. ie Pets and Character Slot additions
• Introduce Items that add any unique attributes into gameplay that would not be otherwise found through Questing/Drops. ie Significant buffs on weapons and gear.
• Items do not manipulate balance in the favor of whomever purchased it. ie A Cash Shop Sword having a Damage Rating that can not be matched by in-game Swords.
• Non-Expansion Size Content remain off of the Cash Shop.

So long as these are met. Zenimax will continue to receive my 15 dollars a month. Ive seen my fair share of MMOs with both Subs and a Cash Shop swear up and down they wouldnt introduce anything that would effect the balance of the game. And many of them did not keep their word. But since Zenimax has yet to make me feel I cant trust them. And they have yet to lead me to believe theyre misguided or greedy. I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

If I was the community. I would be more concerned with the possibility of this game going F2P. Not because this game isnt worth the 15 dollars a month. But because the MMO Demographic, WoW aside, has become accustomed to an environment where they simply buy the game and can play for free. I feel much more safe in a Sub required MMO then the F2P/Hybrid Models out there. If this game falls to a F2P/Hybrid Model...Then you can be guaranteed that the things I listed up top. Will happen.That cash shop will manipulate the game into a Pay to Win environment. And itll do it slowly while the Devs brush off concerns that the items are slowly changing things.

WhiteQueen

@nhisso

Buying a freakin horse, of which other models are offered IN GAME for IN GAME-earned gold, and having access to a race that others do not have is not pay to win. Grow up.

You hit the nail on the head there. EARNED gold. Earned by playing the game. I agree that the realmoney horse is negligible but it's a slippery slope that a lot of games have already found under their feet.

Korah_Eaglecry

WhiteQueen wrote: »

@nhisso

Buying a freakin horse, of which other models are offered IN GAME for IN GAME-earned gold, and having access to a race that others do not have is not pay to win. Grow up.

You hit the nail on the head there. EARNED gold. Earned by playing the game. I agree that the realmoney horse is negligible but it's a slippery slope that a lot of games have already found under their feet.

As long as the Horse is not better then the best horse in game. Then its a nonissue.

I can see people purchasing Horses of different colors with a stat equal to the best horse base stat. That wouldnt bother me at all...Its when that horse is introduced with better base stats then the best in-game horse that Id worry theyve stepped over the line...

korwinthale

@WhiteQueen Exactly I'm just worried about them tumbling down that slope and fear that before launch we are already seeing signs of it.

xHorridx

Im sorry but im not ok with vanity items being in a shop. We pay a 15/month sub. If the game is good that is enough to make their money.

I get sick and tired of listening to mmo gamers nowadays that are ok with "vanity items" being pulled out of the game and put in a shop, when if you you pay 15/month those items SHO)ULD already be in the game as content for 15/month.

We MMO gamers have let our favorite gaming genre creators pull the wool over our yes in recent years to where we believe their BS, that its ok to put "vanity" in cash shops where those items, again, should already be available to us as content. Especially in games like TESO where we pay a premium monthly fee.

I love sub based games, I loathe f2p crap. BTW.

xHorridx

Option 1 - Purchase Price, No monthly subs
- cash shop with cosmetic and "vanity" items is ok
- pay to win is not

Option 2 - Free game, monthly subs
- cash shop with cosmetic and "vanity" items is ok
- pay to win is not

Option 3 - (ESO) Purchase Price + Monthly sub
- cash shop with cosmetic and "vanity" items is NOT ok
- pay to win is not ok


COULDNT AGREE MORE!!!!!!

WhiteQueen

I feel there's an essential disconnect in the understanding of the ethics of this issue between those that think it's okay to have a cash shop in a subbed game and those that don't.

A thought experiment for everyone: Shouldn't my sub basically pay for EVERY service offered by the game? Isn't that the point of my subscription? Else, why sub at all?