That’s a lot of words but blaming EA?
Micro transactions exist for 1 reason: Players want them.
If they didn’t then the entire concept would have fizzled out.
Maybe not all players and for sure make no mistake about it the people (is) that come here are the vocal minority. 99% of players don’t go to forums (forums are for old people!).
They don’t go to websites or any of that. They just play the game....
....and buy micro transactions
That’s a lot of words but blaming EA?
I mean Rare made the decision at the end of the day, but I believe we bring up EA, because they are the ones setting up the precedent. If other companies see how successful it is for EA, what is stopping them from doing it as well? If you look at Anthem when they released their Micro-transaction plan, it was quite similar to what Rare did recently, with very similar reactions.
Micro transactions exist for 1 reason: Players want them.
If they didn’t then the entire concept would have fizzled out.
Cigarettes exist for the same reason, doesn't necessarily mean they are good thing to exist. Don't mistake me, if their exist a market it makes sense to build a business around it, that is just how business works. However, we as the consumer need to look out for what is bests for us. I don't find micro's good for us as a whole.
That, and I despise the company. I don't need much reason to blame them. What criticism and hate they do receive, is well earned in my opinion. I also don't need much of a reason to throw them under the bus. When they start referring to loot boxes as, "Surprise Mechanics," in an effort to distance themselves from labeling what it actually is, gambling targeting children. My desire to give them some empathy completely disappears.
Well, the point is: this stuff that costs 8 bucks could cost 3 or 4 bucks.
In that case, many of those complaining about pricing would be appeased and spending some cash and some of those who find the actual pricing appropriate, would probably find it cheap and say "it's so cheap that I can even have two!".
It's not as simple as that, but there are people willing to spend money (never mind the amount) and there are people who would spend money given the right pricing. It seems like the latter are being cast out of the Emporium, and it doesn't seem like a right move for anyone. I really believe the game would benefit from lower prices.
@nabberwar said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
That’s a lot of words but blaming EA?
I mean Rare made the decision at the end of the day, but I believe we bring up EA, because they are the ones setting up the precedent. If other companies see how successful it is for EA, what is stopping them from doing it as well? If you look at Anthem when they released their Micro-transaction plan, it was quite similar to what Rare did recently, with very similar reactions.
Micro transactions exist for 1 reason: Players want them.
If they didn’t then the entire concept would have fizzled out.
Cigarettes exist for the same reason, doesn't necessarily mean they are good thing to exist. Don't mistake me, if their exist a market it makes sense to build a business around it, that is just how business works. However, we as the consumer need to look out for what is bests for us. I don't find micro's good for us as a whole.
That, and I despise the company. I don't need much reason to blame them. What criticism and hate they do receive, is well earned in my opinion. I also don't need much of a reason to throw them under the bus. When they start referring to loot boxes as, "Surprise Mechanics," in an effort to distance themselves from labeling what it actually is, gambling targeting children. My desire to give them some empathy completely disappears.
Stop making sense with your stupid words!
@fractal-pitch
Did you even read what I wrote?? The first point I made was in defense of microtransactions and in defense of microtransactions. The whole first half of my post was to help players realize why microtransactions were around and why they are needed to help games like SoT continue to release content.
I know the posts of microtransactions is come left and right but I was talking in defense in Rare and then spanking them for going down a bad path for microtransactions. There are other ways and better ways to do it. They have a cash cow with this game for microtransactions. There is just a proper way to do things.
EA brought Microtransactions front and center.....Actually I think the very first microtransactions that let gaming companies know of their potential was actually originally blizzard with WoW.
I remember there was a time when jokingly Blizzard put a mount up for sale with a price tag of $25 and millions of players bought it.
However what EA has done was predatory. Example
Mass Effect 3 - First day DLC. The content was already IN the game. The content was already coded, created, and installed in the game, but it was behind a pay wall. You pay full price for the game only to have to pay MORE to get the complete story. This wasn't an expansion after the game was out for a few months, this was DAY 1.
Its like if you had to pay full price for the last Harry Potter book for them to tell you, ONLY after you bought the book, that you can buy the complete version for only $20 more. They had the complete version the whole time behind the counter but you aren't allowed to buy it until you buy the first incomplete one.
EA's practices were predatory in that they intentionally marketed against human nature. The part of human nature that they marketed against is an actual thing. I keep forgetting what the actual term is but the study was done and it was coined. Same thing with loot boxes and trying to market an addictive gambling response in players.
Eventually their actual games became garbage as they kept pushing for multiplayer in everything so that they could add microtransactions. They made money on it and kept pushing it and then finally got punished for it.
Want to know how bad EA is??
"They're not loot boxes, they're surprise mechanics."
@nabberwar said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
@satanicnemesis
I know this example is kind of completely unrelated, but I will not buy Borderlands 3 on Epic Games Store. Simple because I find the idea of exclusives unhealthy and the whole tactic of bribing a gaming company to sell on a lack-luster mediocre store. I as the consumer lose out on this deal. I get less features, quality, and support by not having it through Steam. This isn't a good deal for me. Sure, the company makes more, and I don't fault Gearbox making the decision, but I need to look out for myself. I am the consumer, it is in my interest to look out for my quality of life. Gearbox will still get my money, it will just come 6 months from now. Shady business tactics should not be supported, even though I really want to play this game in a bad way.
Same and its one of my favorite games 😭
But i wont give up to unhealthy anti consumer behaviour.
@xultanis-dragon
@xultanis-dragon a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@fractal-pitch
Did you even read what I wrote?? The first point I made was in defense of microtransactions and in defense of microtransactions. The whole first half of my post was to help players realize why microtransactions were around and why they are needed to help games like SoT continue to release content.
I know the posts of microtransactions is come left and right but I was talking in defense in Rare and then spanking them for going down a bad path for microtransactions. There are other ways and better ways to do it. They have a cash cow with this game for microtransactions. There is just a proper way to do things.
I did read ! What I said never was against your post or your point ! It was to go along with yours ! :)
We share the same view on the subject !
I think you misunderstood my post or I maybe I wasn't clear enough, ahah
@weedstar-deluxe said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
they only online game that costs monthly money back in the days was wow ....every other game i played was for free...even dlc like mappacks was for free....dont get me wrong sure the company need money back for their work, servers costs money employers and their work costs money...all i bought is the emoticon pack, i completly dont get it why i should pay money for a shipskin that i never use? and no i wouldnt pay for different color skins....has no value for me when i cant get it through gameplay.
I came to say this. I had a feeling after reading that, that the poster must be much younger than I. Pretty much no online games had a monthly fee. WoW is actually the only one I can think of, off the top of my head. ...which happens to be the reason I never even gave WoW a try. It blew my mind that a game wanted me to pay a subscription.
I would be happy to support Rare again with a couple of provisions.
First: I would like to hear a rough road map of what is planned. My support is not unconditional love.
Second: I will not support Rare by these cosmetic items that offer no additional gameplay. Please open the store again for merchandise.
@dislex-fx a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@weedstar-deluxe said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
they only online game that costs monthly money back in the days was wow ....every other game i played was for free...even dlc like mappacks was for free....dont get me wrong sure the company need money back for their work, servers costs money employers and their work costs money...all i bought is the emoticon pack, i completly dont get it why i should pay money for a shipskin that i never use? and no i wouldnt pay for different color skins....has no value for me when i cant get it through gameplay.
I came to say this. I had a feeling after reading that, that the poster must be much younger than I. Pretty much no online games had a monthly fee. WoW is actually the only one I can think of, off the top of my head. ...which happens to be the reason I never even gave WoW a try. It blew my mind that a game wanted me to pay a subscription.
DAOC, Darkfall, FF XI, Lineage 1, Shadowbane (at the start), Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: TOR (at the start), Tabula Rasa, Wildstar etc.
WOW was far, very far to be the only one using that system.
@fractal-pitch said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
@dislex-fx a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@weedstar-deluxe said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
they only online game that costs monthly money back in the days was wow ....every other game i played was for free...even dlc like mappacks was for free....dont get me wrong sure the company need money back for their work, servers costs money employers and their work costs money...all i bought is the emoticon pack, i completly dont get it why i should pay money for a shipskin that i never use? and no i wouldnt pay for different color skins....has no value for me when i cant get it through gameplay.
I came to say this. I had a feeling after reading that, that the poster must be much younger than I. Pretty much no online games had a monthly fee. WoW is actually the only one I can think of, off the top of my head. ...which happens to be the reason I never even gave WoW a try. It blew my mind that a game wanted me to pay a subscription.
DAOC, Darkfall, FF XI, Lineage 1, Shadowbane (at the start), Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: TOR (at the start), Tabula Rasa, Wildstar etc.
WOW was far, very far to be the only one using that system.
Wow. That's a fair bit. I have not even heard of most of those, but I still guess I am much older.
@dislex-fx a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@fractal-pitch said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
@dislex-fx a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@weedstar-deluxe said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
they only online game that costs monthly money back in the days was wow ....every other game i played was for free...even dlc like mappacks was for free....dont get me wrong sure the company need money back for their work, servers costs money employers and their work costs money...all i bought is the emoticon pack, i completly dont get it why i should pay money for a shipskin that i never use? and no i wouldnt pay for different color skins....has no value for me when i cant get it through gameplay.
I came to say this. I had a feeling after reading that, that the poster must be much younger than I. Pretty much no online games had a monthly fee. WoW is actually the only one I can think of, off the top of my head. ...which happens to be the reason I never even gave WoW a try. It blew my mind that a game wanted me to pay a subscription.
DAOC, Darkfall, FF XI, Lineage 1, Shadowbane (at the start), Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: TOR (at the start), Tabula Rasa, Wildstar etc.
WOW was far, very far to be the only one using that system.
Wow. That's a fair bit. I have not even heard of most of those, but I still guess I am much older.
That's just the ones I know :)
Much older than who ? Me ?
Maybe, I turned 30 last May :)
EDIT: found a list of MMOs, just search for "Pay-to-play" and you'll see how WOW wasn't the only one :)
@calicorsaircat said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
@xultanis-dragon Yah pretty much agreed. I think Rare doesn't quite understand how many "collectors" there are out there who are keeping the game alive by playing regularly to unlock all the cosmetics. If a collector type doesn't obtain a skin / variant (talking mostly about ship cosmetics here), they will likely lose their will to purchase in the future, and some may even lose the will to play. Plain and simple. The cosmetics shouldn't be dirt cheap, but they should be accessible & reasonably priced to most and offer enough variety so that most can pick up the one they like. Pets are executed well in this regard, ship cosmetics not so much. For me, ship cosmetics are far more important than pets, or character cosmetics. I'm a pirate, and my ship is my baby.
Pricing needs to make sense and should have an in-game way to offset as you said. I would argue there should be a way to purchase everything with in game currency + a unspecified minimum amount in ancient coins (like $3-$5 worth). Players feel better with their purchase if they can at least offset somehow with in-game currency, and will be more likely to purchase in the future in full if they feel like they have worked to unlock everything in the past, but "just this once" need to pay to keep up. It just makes business sense, and frankly I think Rare's model speaks volumes about how little they understand their player base.
I have good news to you, you can earn the ancient coins in game!
@fractal-pitch @DISLEX-fx
DAOC, Darkfall, FF XI, Lineage 1, Shadowbane (at the start), Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: TOR (at the start), Tabula Rasa, Wildstar etc.
WOW was far, very far to be the only one using that system.
Many have tried, how many succeeded? I am not familiar with all the names here, but I see games that are no longer relevant to this day. For sure Tabula Rasa and Wildstar. However, too add at least two more to that list would be Rift and Global Agenda. Rift didn't last with that model and went to free to play, and I think Global Agenda died.
While many have tried a monthly subscription, many have failed. WoW is probably one of the very few that can actually support the model. Its easy to say a list of games that had it as well, but most of them never lasted any longer than a normal priced game when lifespan is in question.
@v aca-hombre a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@fractal-pitch
Don't forget City of Heroes/Villains.
The best MMO ever.
Completely forgot AND I played it x)
EDIT: YES ! I've been blessed by the "You can't use the word "V aca !" Finally ! I've seen so many people not being able to do this by replying to you ! Ahah
@nabberwar a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@fractal-pitch @DISLEX-fx
DAOC, Darkfall, FF XI, Lineage 1, Shadowbane (at the start), Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: TOR (at the start), Tabula Rasa, Wildstar etc.
WOW was far, very far to be the only one using that system.
Many have tried, how many succeeded? I am not familiar with all the names here, but I see games that are no longer relevant to this day. For sure Tabula Rasa and Wildstar. However, too add at least two more to that list would be Rift and Global Agenda. Rift didn't last with that model and went to free to play, and I think Global Agenda died.
While many have tried a monthly subscription, many have failed. WoW is probably one of the very few that can actually support the model. Its easy to say a list of games that had it as well, but most of them never lasted any longer than a normal priced game when lifespan is in question.
This has nothing to do with the monthly subscription but rather how Blizzard managed their game. And I don't see how that's relevant to the topic :D
Even more when you know that when they went the F2P-way in other games, a MTX store came along.
EDIT: or some other forms of economy.
@fractal-pitch
And I don't see how that's relevant to the topic :D
I wasn't the one who expanded first on this subject.
Even more when you know that when they went the F2P-way in other games, a MTX store came along.
While yes, that is true, however, the monthly payment in of itself was shown to be not sustainable. My whole point is that the monthly subscription model isn't a real reliable method to sustain a single game, if we only use those who succeeded with it as examples. The only way it actually last with this method is if the game itself is quite phenominal. Micro's are more sustainable in a sense, but subscriptions aren't.
Well, to know that, you'd have to define what a game needs to do to "succeed". After all, WOW is an outlier even outside of the subscription fee category. Kinda like Minecraft.
I mean, if we're asking how long the subscription games lasted, we have to do the same for F2P. How long have those lasted? How long do they need to last to "succeed"?
The point being that saying a game doesn't count as a success because it didn't last as long as WOW isn't really realistic. Not many games last as long as that, but still counted as a success critically and financially.
Personally, I really like Pirate 101's approach where you could pay a subscription for access to everything, or pay for things piecemeal and unlock them forever.
@dislex-fx said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
@weedstar-deluxe said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
they only online game that costs monthly money back in the days was wow ....every other game i played was for free...even dlc like mappacks was for free....dont get me wrong sure the company need money back for their work, servers costs money employers and their work costs money...all i bought is the emoticon pack, i completly dont get it why i should pay money for a shipskin that i never use? and no i wouldnt pay for different color skins....has no value for me when i cant get it through gameplay.
I came to say this. I had a feeling after reading that, that the poster must be much younger than I. Pretty much no online games had a monthly fee. WoW is actually the only one I can think of, off the top of my head. ...which happens to be the reason I never even gave WoW a try. It blew my mind that a game wanted me to pay a subscription.
You don't have very good memory or a very selective one as many games had online subscriptions (some still do) and I am surprised you don't know of them. Star Wars Galaxies? Star Wars The Old Republic? Shadowbane? Final Fantasy XI Online? Final Fantasy XIV Online? Even Phantasy Star Online had a monthly subscription starting with version 2 on the Dreamcast (which continued on the Gamecube and Xbox). Not to mention that many began with online subscriptions before either going free to play or no more subscriptions after the initial purchase (Elder Scrolls Online for example).
It was in fact very common for MMOs to offer subscription services as they were all chasing the Blizzard/WOW market - with most failing to do so.
@nabberwar a dit dans Misconception on Microtransactions :
@fractal-pitch
And I don't see how that's relevant to the topic :D
I wasn't the one who expanded first on this subject.
You didn't understand.
You're directly making a connection between the "death" of those games and their economy, like it was the sole cause of their "death". I don't think that's what caused their demise. Others, more important factors made that happen.
A lot of people are OK with paying a subscription fee if the game they're paying it for is good enough and treats them well. Besides WOW, wich is a monster, EVE: Online is a good example of that.
Also, like Hombre said: comparing those MMOs with WOW is just unrealistic as WOW was and still is an alien in this category. A lot of MMOs simply shut down because developers didn't want to continue to support it because they wanted to do something else.
Assuming that the deaths of these mmos were caused by their economy is, I think, short-sighted.
Wildstar wasn't that interesting, Lineage 1 went to Lineage 2, Star Wars: Galaxies was unbalanced and kind of awful at the end etc.
@king-deka I'm pretty sure the amount you earn in game will only ever offset rounding error. My point is that it should be a currency currently in use and not the brand new one. We now have 3 currencies, one which is useless - gold, another that still has a shot of being well controlled - doubloons, and ancient coins. My point is to create a sink for the other two besides ancient coins that still allows players to play as they normally would, earn gold or doubloons, and use them to partially pay for cosmetics they actually want. If rare is serious about their plan to release cosmetics monthly, it would necessitate players still farm ancient coins in game or buy outright probably half time time even with my suggestion. Just makes business sense for Rare to make their other currencies a bit more valuable by permitting their use to offset ancient coin purchases. Keeps players happy and hooked on playing
@fractal-pitch Sorry mate, I was wrong in the prices!! The thing that cost 7 Euros was the whole pack of the pet!! 5 euros for the basic animal is not that bad ! Totally missunderstood, I checked yesterday the emporium and I was totally wrong!
I mean its still 5 euros... what I think it's kinda excesive is that each pet is 5. I dunno maybe if you could buy the basic pet for 5 and then some other "colours or skins" of the same type of pet for less coins if you already own the basic animal would be cool, it's udnerstandable that people just buy only 1 then, but anyway 5 euros is not that much!
Yehaaaa!!
Spreaad the curse in the seaas!!
@blazedrake100 said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
@troubled-cells
When was that? Rare was pretty clear that pets were going to be microtransactions ever since they announced them around launch. But they instead put more content out first because that's what people wanted.
I'm on about paying for currency. Not the actual pets.
@phantaxus said in Misconception on Microtransactions:
Totally agree, Rare should take a look at the Elite Dangerous store to see how it should be done
Elite Dangerous Gamestore
![Elite Dangerous Gamestore]()
Use Arx to buy customisations for your commander, ships, SRVs and fighters.
^ nearly 500 space ship skins from free to £11
Yeah but I hope they don't do what Elite Dangerous did. Focus so much on releasing ship skins and kits for money they forgot to release content for the actual game. So I hope SoT doesn't do the same. Focus so much on the Emporium they forget the rest of the game.
List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games
