Why are some people so eager for over-monetization?

MCMancub

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorties still doesnt mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

starkerealm

pppontus wrote: »

That's correct, but it is also true for a lot of things out there. Money is the primary motivating factor for a lot of people/companies/whatevers. It's an interesting world we live in to say the least. If you don't expect that to invade the gaming space even more, I think you're in for a rough surprise

"Expect the worst, and you can only ever be pleasantly surprised?" Yeah, that's a terrible way to live. I tried. Sooner or later you just give up. It's pretty shank horrible.

So, no. I understand what's going on here. That doesn't mean I need to drink the koolaid.

Psychobunni

MCMancub wrote: »

You're not listening to what anyone else has to say. You can't define what over monetization is if you don't know (none of us do) what ZOS's business costs are. If they have to push this much on us to survive, so be it. I'd rather have ads in ESO than no ESO. More and more these threads are being created by people who clearly have no concept of the business world.

Okay, real world business metaphor Satan(wal)Mart. Bottom line oriented, cheap junk, unhappy employees, long list keeps going... VS Costco, happy, well paid employees, better quality products (some) and still making money and being competitive

I want ZOS to be Costco and not SatanMart. I know, especially in the US we are conditioned to accept greed as the all hailing master of capitalism. ZOS can have standards and still make money.

Note: my metaphor is NOT an attempt to have a political debate or debate the merits of the companies used, simply to provide a business example in the "real" world

starkerealm

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorties still doesnt mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

Given that, for J Casini... he is the buyer... it seems fairly reasonable he'd assign that for himself. *shrugs* Or, you know, "she," "she'd," and "her," either way.

The customer makes the assessment on if something is worth their money... their personal assessment for themselves is going to be accurate unless they misjudge themselves or the product.

Thymos

AH93 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

AH93 wrote: »

Sadly most online games, (even some single player games now!), have gone down a path of monetising every little thing they can, because why bother actually playing the game and putting in the effort to unlock items, when you can stand in town spending money in the in-game store?

Sense of achievement slowly trickling away.

Ironically, you have this a little backwards. Publishers are asking, "why bother selling a game as a product when you could turn it into a service platform instead and pull money in over and over?" It's part of what lead to the high profile MMO boom with games like Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, The Old Repbulic, Star Trek Online, DC Universe Online, ect. The idea that you could sell a game, and then get people to cough up 15 bucks a month after that for as long as they wanted to continue playing.

Microtransactions weren't added to Dead Space 3 because there were people who didn't want to play the game. It was because publishers wanted a venue to pull in more money. So they threw lockboxes into a single player game. It's why stuff like Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition ended up with free to play style microtransaction systems buried in their multiplayer components.

The idea that, "no, really, we can make more money on this."

Even the rampant idiotic DLC releases for something like Saints Row 3 and 4. Where there's something like 20 items for each, and it's freakin' skin packs.

What has happened though, is marketing has kept billing this as "value added" rather than, "yeah, we chopped out parts of our game, and now we're going to sell them back to you." Which was the case with Human Revolution, where all the preorder DLC packs were literally in the game, you just couldn't pick up the items or get the dialog node to run the missions. It wasn't even just, on disk, it was actually in game.

And, some people believe that. I remember seeing someone arguing that ESO should go to a Neverwinter style F2P system. Which is to say a horrifically P2W system, because you can always grind until your eyes bleed for the premium stuff. That is to say farming every day all day for a couple bucks worth of the premium currency. (If STO's rates are anything to go by). Because, they honestly believed it was a non-exploitative setup. Because you could put in a 40 hour week grinding in order to get a 10 dollar premium item that was flat out better than anything you could obtain without using the real money currency.

Yep true enough, it's a shame but I guess it's a sign of the times, at least there's a few decent companies left, (CD Projekt Red).

You obviously haven't played their Witcher battle arena game on tablets or mobile.

starkerealm

Psychobunni wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

You're not listening to what anyone else has to say. You can't define what over monetization is if you don't know (none of us do) what ZOS's business costs are. If they have to push this much on us to survive, so be it. I'd rather have ads in ESO than no ESO. More and more these threads are being created by people who clearly have no concept of the business world.

Okay, real world business metaphor Satan(wal)Mart. Bottom line oriented, cheap junk, unhappy employees, long list keeps going... VS Costco, happy, well paid employees, better quality products (some) and still making money and being competitive

I want ZOS to be Costco and not SatanMart. I know, especially in the US we are conditioned to accept greed as the all hailing master of capitalism. ZOS can have standards and still make money.

Note: my metaphor is NOT an attempt to have a political debate or debate the merits of the companies used, simply to provide a business example in the "real" world

Weird thing... then Walmart starts turning around and actually talking about raising their workers to a living wage, rather than minimum after the blowback from all the news stories about how they were having to prep their own people for food stamps.

It kinda supports Rainfeather's post earlier.

jcasini222ub17_ESO

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorities still doesn't mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

I happy you got a laugh out of it Would you like me to provide more laughs?

Because, certainly, I am still baffled by pixel purchases of all those books you see in the crown store. Which of course i can be baffled by behavior right? Correct me if I'm wrong please

And once again maybe try reading critically. This part "Fully understand different priorities still doesn't mean i cant be baffled by behavior." This means I understand, in most cases, the buyer determines the value.

However, lets go deep then. Supply can affect the value just as easily, lets say if I reduce the drop rates across the board for motifs and crating materials (this seems to already have been done). Aren't I artificially pumping up the value of motifs/crafting goods by limiting supply? If I don't tell my customer this aren't I hoodwinking them into an raw deal? Does this create an environment where making a crown shop purchase is easier (more inviting) than making an in-game transaction simply based on the manipulated drop rate on supply?

Please continue to baffle me

MCMancub

starkerealm wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorties still doesnt mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

Given that, for J Casini... he is the buyer... it seems fairly reasonable he'd assign that for himself. *shrugs* Or, you know, "she," "she'd," and "her," either way.

The customer makes the assessment on if something is worth their money... their personal assessment for themselves is going to be accurate unless they misjudge themselves or the product.

Maybe I should have said customers.

Psychobunni wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

You're not listening to what anyone else has to say. You can't define what over monetization is if you don't know (none of us do) what ZOS's business costs are. If they have to push this much on us to survive, so be it. I'd rather have ads in ESO than no ESO. More and more these threads are being created by people who clearly have no concept of the business world.

Okay, real world business metaphor Satan(wal)Mart. Bottom line oriented, cheap junk, unhappy employees, long list keeps going... VS Costco, happy, well paid employees, better quality products (some) and still making money and being competitive

I want ZOS to be Costco and not SatanMart. I know, especially in the US we are conditioned to accept greed as the all hailing master of capitalism. ZOS can have standards and still make money.

Note: my metaphor is NOT an attempt to have a political debate or debate the merits of the companies used, simply to provide a business example in the "real" world

So what you're saying is without any access to ZOS's budget, revenue, overhead, etc. you can magically know that they are making more than they're earning? That just makes them greedy, right?

ZOS just went B2P because they're in the freakin' hole, financially speaking. They don't have money. They don't have resources. The crown shop is their way to fix that problem. My god, it is really not that difficult.

pppontus

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorties still doesnt mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

^This.

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorties still doesnt mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

Estimates put services as opposed to products at about 60-70% of GDP in my country, just as an example. I work for a company where the physical products are going extinct.

Hell, this whole game is just "pixels" so those $60 were just pixels.. unless you bought a disc copy

This is maybe taking the discussion a bit far, but honestly, paying for virtual stuff is a real thing and there's nothing strange about it really. Sure, some things may be ridiculous for you (like I think online gambling is like the worst idea anyone ever came up with) but it appeals to people and they spend their money on it and get something they want in return.

I mean, I pay for netflix, subs on twitch etc. and it's not really any different IMO than buying something I want in a game .. like a character name change. It makes more sense to me than buying $10 coffees, while those who do probably thinks subbing to streamers when you can watch for free is stupid

starkerealm

MCMancub wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorties still doesnt mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

Given that, for J Casini... he is the buyer... it seems fairly reasonable he'd assign that for himself. *shrugs* Or, you know, "she," "she'd," and "her," either way.

The customer makes the assessment on if something is worth their money... their personal assessment for themselves is going to be accurate unless they misjudge themselves or the product.

Maybe I should have said customers.

As an aggregate? Sure, maybe. But, you're still in the same place. You're saying, "this is subjective, so that opinion can't be right." Which is just amusing, when you think about it.

Psychobunni

MCMancub wrote: »

So what you're saying is without any access to ZOS's budget, revenue, overhead, etc. you can magically know that they are making more than they're earning? That just makes them greedy, right?

ZOS just went B2P because they're in the freakin' hole, financially speaking. They don't have money. They don't have resources. The crown shop is their way to fix that problem. My god, it is really not that difficult.

In a hole doesn't mean you throw your standards out the door. It's not .....oh my electric bill is due and I just had to spend xxx money replacing the transmission in the car, "I better hit the street corner to earn some bucks" No, its "okay, what can I rearrange, put on hold to pay this bill"....standards.

starkerealm

pppontus wrote: »

Hell, this whole game is just "pixels" so those $60 were just pixels.. unless you bought a disc copy

Even if you bought a disk copy, nothing's changed. See your earlier post, if you missed that point.

MCMancub

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorities still doesn't mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

I happy you got a laugh out of it Would you like me to provide more laughs?

Because, certainly, I am still baffled by pixel purchases of all those books you see in the crown store. Which of course i can be baffled by behavior right? Correct me if I'm wrong please

And once again maybe try reading critically. This part "Fully understand different priorities still doesn't mean i cant be baffled by behavior." This means I understand, in most cases, the buyer determines the value.

However, lets go deep then. Supply can affect the value just as easily, lets say if I reduce the drop rates across the board for motifs and crating materials (this seems to already have been done). Aren't I artificially pumping up the value of motifs/crafting goods by limiting supply? If I don't tell my customer this aren't I hoodwinking them into an raw deal? Does this create an environment where making a crown shop purchase is easier (more inviting) than making an in-game transaction simply based on the manipulated drop rate on supply?

Please continue to baffle me

No, you're not. Lowered drop rates (the change has been around for 2 days, there is literally no proof of this anywhere) would not suddenly motivate a buyer to spend cash on a non-essential item they otherwise wouldn't have bought simply because it is more difficult to obtain in game. The buyer would just be locked out of the opportunity to obtain that item. I noted non-essential because this isn't the case if it were something required to play the game (see subscription based models...).

THAT is a problem. But even if they made it so you could only get the motifs from the cash store, it isn't suddenly going to make people buy them. If people don't buy them, the price lowers. Sellers literally cannot force the buyer to do something. They can influence all day (hell, it's what business is), but that doesn't force them to do anything.

JoseDelgadoCub17_ESO

Uhh so you want us to ask for content which we already know we aren't getting until after console release...? mmm ok.

starkerealm

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

your right people do have different priorities. currently most of my paycheck goes to savings/college loan debt (should be done by 33 so in 6 years really pumped about that) but I could buy the whole crown store if I wanted to today, money isnt an issue just for you.

However, Im not a spender really more of a saver so maybe that explains our different approachs and mindsets.

I dont get jacked up over pixels, new (real) hiking boots maybe but pixels? we talkin bout pixels? not real book, not a real horse, but pixels.(hopefully a few of your realize were i'm borrowing this from)

Fully understand different priorities still doesn't mean i cant be baffled by behavior.

I think it's laughable that you seem to think data is somehow worth less than physical items. Value is determined by the buyer, not the supplier.

I happy you got a laugh out of it Would you like me to provide more laughs?

Because, certainly, I am still baffled by pixel purchases of all those books you see in the crown store. Which of course i can be baffled by behavior right? Correct me if I'm wrong please

And once again maybe try reading critically. This part "Fully understand different priorities still doesn't mean i cant be baffled by behavior." This means I understand, in most cases, the buyer determines the value.

However, lets go deep then. Supply can affect the value just as easily, lets say if I reduce the drop rates across the board for motifs and crating materials (this seems to already have been done). Aren't I artificially pumping up the value of motifs/crafting goods by limiting supply? If I don't tell my customer this aren't I hoodwinking them into an raw deal? Does this create an environment where making a crown shop purchase is easier (more inviting) than making an in-game transaction simply based on the manipulated drop rate on supply?

Please continue to baffle me

No, you're not. Lowered drop rates (the change has been around for 2 days, there is literally no proof of this anywhere) would not suddenly motivate a buyer to spend cash on a non-essential item they otherwise wouldn't have bought simply because it is more difficult to obtain in game. The buyer would just be locked out of the opportunity to obtain that item. I noted non-essential because this isn't the case if it were something required to play the game (see subscription based models...).

THAT is a problem. But even if they made it so you could only get the motifs from the cash store, it isn't suddenly going to make people buy them. If people don't buy them, the price lowers. Sellers literally cannot force the buyer to do something. They can influence all day (hell, it's what business is), but that doesn't force anything.

The effective drop rate for Motifs was lowered with 1.6, not with the introduction of motifs into the crown store.

RazzPitazz

It's not about who the cash shop appeals to; the beauty and disdain of a cash shop is that it can appeal to everyone. The problem is the fact that ZoS will now have to inspect every potentIal item they put into it.
If they release am item that boosts stats you better believe someone is going to attack up on it. If they later decide that item needs to change you can also bet that person will demand a refund.
The sensible business model says build a stable, fun game That people want to buy cosmetics for (THIS is how you outsell major IP's). If they start releasing hardcore shortcuts, they will reduce the amount of money to make and the game will sink to the bottom with all of the WoW clones, scraping by.
Personally, I think Bethesda should be pissed that this ever happened.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

daemonios wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Pendrillion wrote: »

I wager a guess and say, a lot of the Forum activities are driven by people who profit from MMO's. I always find it a little suspect how strong the push toward F2P in most MMO's is. I suspect a lot of posts in this forum come from Goldfarmers or from people hired of that Industry. Or people who make a living out of those aspects of the Internet.

Looking at the account profiles of posters asking for the delete limit to be removed is... enlightening, most of the time.

I've often wondered about this myself. And at times when I'm feeling more conspiracy-theorist, I wonder if ZOS itself isn't astro-turfing the forums to push more forms of monetization or to make it seem like there are more supporters for that model than there are in reality.

Why would they bother?

It's a patently obvious fact that only a trivial minority of players ever visit forums, let alone post, so there's no incentive for ZOS to try to astro-turf .. there aren't enough eyeballs to see it to be relevant.

MCMancub

Psychobunni wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

So what you're saying is without any access to ZOS's budget, revenue, overhead, etc. you can magically know that they are making more than they're earning? That just makes them greedy, right?

ZOS just went B2P because they're in the freakin' hole, financially speaking. They don't have money. They don't have resources. The crown shop is their way to fix that problem. My god, it is really not that difficult.

In a hole doesn't mean you throw your standards out the door. It's not .....oh my electric bill is due and I just had to spend xxx money replacing the transmission in the car, "I better hit the street corner to earn some bucks" No, its "okay, what can I rearrange, put on hold to pay this bill"....standards.

If all you care about is survival, it does. In your scenario all you're doing is rearranging assets (cash) on the same income. That's not the same scenario as "You lost your job. Your bills are due. How are you going to pay them?"

starkerealm

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Pendrillion wrote: »

I wager a guess and say, a lot of the Forum activities are driven by people who profit from MMO's. I always find it a little suspect how strong the push toward F2P in most MMO's is. I suspect a lot of posts in this forum come from Goldfarmers or from people hired of that Industry. Or people who make a living out of those aspects of the Internet.

Looking at the account profiles of posters asking for the delete limit to be removed is... enlightening, most of the time.

I've often wondered about this myself. And at times when I'm feeling more conspiracy-theorist, I wonder if ZOS itself isn't astro-turfing the forums to push more forms of monetization or to make it seem like there are more supporters for that model than there are in reality.

Why would they bother?

It's a patently obvious fact that only a trivial minority of players ever visit forums, let alone post, so there's no incentive for ZOS to try to astro-turf .. there aren't enough eyeballs to see it to be relevant.

It applies for goldsellers, because they're actually trying to get something out of it.

It doesn't make sense for ZOS to do it. "We went buy to play because that's what our players demanded." Who asked for this? Exit polling from departing players? I don't think ESO was even doing those. Reddit? Here? Trolls snarking off about the game on other boards? Free to play locusts that won't pay for games because, really, can you blame them? The industry has already shown them that if they want to play an MMO they only need to wait six months. But, no. They say it because there's no way to verify their sources. They don't need to astroturf it because there's no way to check their claims.

Elsonso

Genomic wrote: »

Which brings me to my other main concern. Far from the careful and cautious approach, many people seem to be clamouring for runaway monetization. There are threads where people are saying they'd eagerly pay large sums of money for almost any boost, change, or item. ZOS will cater to what players want, in particular if it helps the bottom line, and it is my concern that these people, who speak the loudest with their wallet, will be the ones driving the game's future.

Please, don't say "ESO has to make money" or "ESO is B2P now, so get with the program" because as I've mentioned, I'm already aware of that. This post is not about that. It's about my concerns for an over focus on adding/promoting Crown Store items - cash shop over content - and about the sheer eagerness by which some people are pushing (almost begging) for this to occur.

Do we really want ESO going down that path?

I am also amazed at how fast people suggest ways that ZOS can take their money.

Two things:

1. People are being helpful. It is new and they know ZOS is looking for ideas.
2. People believe that the only way that ZOS is going to make money is the cash shop. Consequently the only attention that they will be giving to the game will be items in the Crown Store.

pppontus wrote: »

You can complain about it all you want, but yes, what makes money is what controls companies (since well, companies are started mainly to make money) and thus the highest value clients will dictate development in most cases.

You have to be very naive not to understand this, and that people don't complain about doesn't necessarily mean we like it - it just means we are aware of how our society functions already and know that everyone wants our money

When I purchase a traditional game from a game company, I tend to be purchasing a box and I have the subsequent option to purchase expansion packs, DLC, or whatever comes after the initial game. I don't care about the business model and come across game companies that strip down the initial game so that DLCs can add in stuff that should have been there from the start. There is a recent fourth installment of a very successful game from another company that I did not purchase for this reason.

I prefer to purchase games from game companies that are interested in making a good game and selling it, not just making money.

I do not purchase games where I feel I have to be a blood bank for financial vampires back at the home office. When I feel exploited that way, I tend to walk, and if this turns into a trend from that company, I tend to stay away from anything associated with the company. There are some very nice games out there that look interesting, but I do not own them because I don't trust the company.

Historically, ZeniMax Media companies have been very good at making good games and selling them. They are still making games, so I assume that they are good at the making money part. I do not feel like I am a blood bank with games from ZM studios, particularly those from BGS.

ZOS is at a crossroads with the enthusiasm that they have for the cash store. I get the cash store, and a cash store and a subscription, does not constitute exploitation and does not automatically make me an involuntary blood donor. How they handle these things can cross that line though. They have made vague promises about the bounds of the cash store offerings, worded in such a way that they can do anything. On top of that, they change decisions like a flock of birds changes direction.

I will stick around while gameplay is more important than revenue. I will tolerate a certain amount of convenience and shortcuts, like a minor XP potion similar to what ESO Plus members get. I am OK with pets, mounts, and stuff like that. I am fine with DLC that add areas. I am OK with many of the racial motifs, not so much the rare ones.

When the cash store overtly replaces the purpose of playing the game, or becomes the place to go instead of playing the game, then I have to find the door.

So, what I am watching for are things that make it clear that revenue is more important than gameplay:

1. Cash store only character customization (barbershop). If it is available for both gold and Crowns, I am not concerned.
2. Gold tempers in the cash store. These are used to make better equipment and are a show stopper for me.
3. Buying traits in the cash store. These are used to make equipment and no part of the trait system should be in the cash store.
4. Any weapon or armor in the cash store. This even applies to stuff that is worse than what is in the game.
5. Lock boxes or keys in the cash store.
6. A system or capability that is gameplay but is locked behind a paywall. This would be things like the spell system, open world PVP, justice system enhancements, etc. Area DLC are not included in this.
7. EDIT: Level boosts. Anything that warps players into a higher level with a purchase from the cash store.

I feel that all of these things are within the exclusion zone of what ZOS originally said regarding the limits of the cash store.

Destai

pppontus wrote: »

Do you yourself work for a company that makes money? Would that company not be interested in selling products that people express they are interested in, especially products that have a low production cost?

You can complain about it all you want, but yes, what makes money is what controls companies (since well, companies are started mainly to make money) and thus the highest value clients will dictate development in most cases.

You have to be very naive not to understand this, and that people don't complain about doesn't necessarily mean we like it - it just means we are aware of how our society functions already and know that everyone wants our money

Except that this is a recent phenomenon - if the MMO industry was always like this I could tolerate it, or at the very least accept it. But it hasn't. Games used to be sold complete. Months or years, an expansion came out, and it was happily purchased.

The whole problem people have with the current gaming environment is that it's overly focused on the profit motive, rather than just making a game. Of course they need to make money. No one's saying they shouldn't. But players don't want to be annoyed and asked to pay up at every turn. I don't get why that's so understand for gaming companies and supporters like yourself to understand. Do you actively like spending money or actually enjoying the game? Do you like being immersed or being advertised to?

I feel the whole problem is that these have become closer to SaaS than an actual product or experience.

pppontus

starkerealm wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Hell, this whole game is just "pixels" so those $60 were just pixels.. unless you bought a disc copy

Even if you bought a disk copy, nothing's changed. See your earlier post, if you missed that point.

In case it wasn't clear, that was a joke. It's a service packaged as a product, but a service nonetheless.


On another note a lot of the comments here make it sound like entertainment doesn't have a monetary value, but it very much does. And it's just that .. Entertainment. If it doesn't entertain you, then you should not pay for it.

I mean it would have to be one hell of a motif to warrant $40, for me I'd probably rather live without it unless it's spectacular. For others it might be worth it, and a lot will choose never to buy it even for $5.

But then again, prices will probably drop within a few weeks as they are likely set high initially to capitalise on the "new shiny" and the "oh I've been looking for that for ages". Also an incredibly common strategy employed by most companies.

Morals? I don't know. Obviously I would prefer Costco in the example above, and I have my ideals, always buy from the most "morally" correct sources when possible. And I don't agree with cutting costs at every expense, but that's what it has come to and the world will not change because the ESO forums said so ^^

jcasini222ub17_ESO

"Hell, this whole game is just "pixels" so those $60 were just pixels.. unless you bought a disc copy "

Some of us are old souls with young hearts.

"sure, some things may be ridiculous for you (like I think online gambling is like the worst idea anyone ever came up with) but it appeals to people and they spend their money on it and get something they want in return."

And this is what surprises me, I don't want you to not spend in the store, nor do I care if you do. I'm fascinated by this business model which takes what could have been an entire world development for sub, breaks it down into smaller pieces then resells to the player base at higher individual costs. In an ideal world this is a sub game and some of the stuff in the crown store today (take mounts for example) would be worked into content releases. I know we'd all love that, but I know that model didn't work.

Currently, I'm watching ZoS, a rookie in the MMO market, delve into an evolving business practice which I think can be described as totally grey morally?I think that's a fair description of b2p cash shop. Already we see limited time mounts, I am going to assume these will reappear for a lesser cost. Anyone talking about economics in this thread I believe would agree that's targeted at impluse buyers. We have seen datamined other senche mounts that we could just wait for. Note I doubt the majority of the player base knows that. They haven't really been clear where the line is drawn with what will "appear" in the store. I'm pretty sure all their statements have been decently vague.

Maybe I was a bit too strong in my language. I just get real creeped out at thinking what I'll see in the crown store in 6 months with such an eager appetite.

I find the 60 one time cost, plus subscription (soon to end because its not a sub game anymore) but I'll still be playing (maybe), a similar cost to new hiking boots (which I go through laces idk) and insoles). However, if I bought brand new laces, and brand new insoles before each hike based on color and look.. well I wouldn't.

pppontus

Destai wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Do you yourself work for a company that makes money? Would that company not be interested in selling products that people express they are interested in, especially products that have a low production cost?

You can complain about it all you want, but yes, what makes money is what controls companies (since well, companies are started mainly to make money) and thus the highest value clients will dictate development in most cases.

You have to be very naive not to understand this, and that people don't complain about doesn't necessarily mean we like it - it just means we are aware of how our society functions already and know that everyone wants our money

Except that this is a recent phenomenon - if the MMO industry was always like this I could tolerate it, or at the very least accept it. But it hasn't. Games used to be sold complete. Months or years, an expansion came out, and it was happily purchased.

The whole problem people have with the current gaming environment is that it's overly focused on the profit motive, rather than just making a game. Of course they need to make money. No one's saying they shouldn't. But players don't want to be annoyed and asked to pay up at every turn. I don't get why that's so understand for gaming companies and supporters like yourself to understand. Do you actively like spending money or actually enjoying the game? Do you like being immersed or being advertised to?

I feel the whole problem is that these have become closer to SaaS than an actual product or experience.

I was annoyed at BF3 because they set us up to purchase the game twice to get all the maps with their whole premium thing. That was like 2011. I'm done being annoyed by it, it's not just MMOs, almost all games now launch with an already finished plan for making more money with the same product. Or they sell their alpha/beta (with or without stating so) and never get finished because they can get decent cash without even finishing the game.

If I thought an Internet rampage was going to change it, I'd go on one. But I don't.

starkerealm

pppontus wrote: »

On another note a lot of the comments here make it sound like entertainment doesn't have a monetary value, but it very much does. And it's just that .. Entertainment. If it doesn't entertain you, then you should not pay for it.

And, that's the crossroads I'm at. Is this game something I even want to continue playing, much less paying for. Things break, entropy happens, nothing lasts forever; fine. But that doesn't mean I have to enjoy it when it happens.

pppontus wrote: »

But then again, prices will probably drop within a few weeks as they are likely set high initially to capitalise on the "new shiny" and the "oh I've been looking for that for ages". Also an incredibly common strategy employed by most companies.

With cash shops in MMOs? Not so much. There might be limited time sales in the future. They've actually copped to the fact that those will happen with some items. But actually reducing the price later? There's no real incentive. Go look at any MMO cash shop. Price deterioration is very rare because MMOs are already a genre that has trained their customers to expect it. So they cannot afford to engage in it in the cash shop, because it will mean their sales as a whole will plummet.

pppontus wrote: »

Morals? I don't know.

That much is obvious.

You're making an ends justify the means argument for corporate greed. It doesn't really work that way.

starkerealm

pppontus wrote: »

If I thought an Internet rampage was going to change it, I'd go on one. But I don't.

And yet... here you are, engaging in one. Just, going the other way, because clearly ZOS needs you as its advocate.

pppontus

jcasini222ub17_ESO wrote: »

"Hell, this whole game is just "pixels" so those $60 were just pixels.. unless you bought a disc copy "

Some of us are old souls with young hearts.

"sure, some things may be ridiculous for you (like I think online gambling is like the worst idea anyone ever came up with) but it appeals to people and they spend their money on it and get something they want in return."

And this is what surprises me, I don't want you to not spend in the store, nor do I care if you do. I'm fascinated by this business model which takes what could have been an entire world development for sub, breaks it down into smaller pieces then resells to the player base at higher individual costs. In an ideal world this is a sub game and some of the stuff in the crown store today (take mounts for example) would be worked into content releases. I know we'd all love that, but I know that model didn't work.

Currently, I'm watching ZoS, a rookie in the MMO market, delve into an evolving business practice which I think can be described as totally grey morally?I think that's a fair description of b2p cash shop. Already we see limited time mounts, I am going to assume these will reappear for a lesser cost. Anyone talking about economics in this thread I believe would agree that's targeted at impluse buyers. We have seen datamined other senche mounts that we could just wait for. Note I doubt the majority of the player base knows that. They haven't really been clear where the line is drawn with what will "appear" in the store. I'm pretty sure all their statements have been decently vague.

Maybe I was a bit too strong in my language. I just get real creeped out at thinking what I'll see in the crown store in 6 months with such an eager appetite.

I find the 60 one time cost, plus subscription (soon to end because its not a sub game anymore) but I'll still be playing (maybe), a similar cost to new hiking boots (which I go through laces idk) and insoles). However, if I bought brand new laces, and brand new insoles before each hike based on color and look.. well I wouldn't.

That's the thing, if you thought it would be worth that cost to vary your colours on your boots every day.. you could spend the money on it.

I know people who spend more money on shoes than I do on food monthly, I wouldn't do it because I simply do not value that. I'm perfectly happy with having a pair of shoes for when it's cold and another for when it isn't..

But those shoes will still get produced because they sell. I don't argue with that.

Sure, it'd be nice if all those shoemakers instead went to work on imperial city, but unless I can convince everyone on the planet to pay for that instead.. y'know.

starkerealm

pppontus wrote: »

Sure, it'd be nice if all those shoemakers instead went to work on imperial city, but unless I can convince everyone on the planet to pay for that instead.. y'know.

Yeah... the problem is, when you get people to cough up for already produced content, it doesn't exactly incentivize the creation of new content. If they can just add random garbage items to the store using existing content... why spend money on making a new zone? I mean, it took STO two years as the most profitable PWI title before they rated a new zone? Or, TSW, which went Buy to Play... and the "seriously guys, it'll be done in six months" release of Tokyo got pushed back over two years?

Yeah. No. This could easily mean we won't see the Imperial city or any other new zone until Christmas 2016.

pppontus

starkerealm wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

If I thought an Internet rampage was going to change it, I'd go on one. But I don't.

And yet... here you are, engaging in one. Just, going the other way, because clearly ZOS needs you as its advocate.

Hey, I have some time to kill..

Let's be clear, I'm not advocating anything here. I still pay my sub and if it was up to me the game would be sub based still.

I'm just trying to clear up a certain amount of nonsense especially in regards to the (very common) attitude that because people want stuff in the crown store they are evil and they destroy this game. Which is the attitude I sensed from the OP of this thread.

What destroyed this game (if you consider it destroyed or if you will in the future) is that not enough gamers wanted it, not enough people wanted to pay $15/month for it

pppontus

starkerealm wrote: »

pppontus wrote: »

Sure, it'd be nice if all those shoemakers instead went to work on imperial city, but unless I can convince everyone on the planet to pay for that instead.. y'know.

Yeah... the problem is, when you get people to cough up for already produced content, it doesn't exactly incentivize the creation of new content. If they can just add random garbage items to the store using existing content... why spend money on making a new zone? I mean, it took STO two years as the most profitable PWI title before they rated a new zone? Or, TSW, which went Buy to Play... and the "seriously guys, it'll be done in six months" release of Tokyo got pushed back over two years?

Yeah. No. This could easily mean we won't see the Imperial city or any other new zone until Christmas 2016.

Correct, but are you going to buy the multiple thousands of copies of IC to make it more profitable than selling reskins? I won't..

I find it just as bad as you, we just look at it from different perspectives I think.