Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Microsoft endorsing sale of in-game items?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:40:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot of
controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension of
the free marketplace to the gaming worlds that are now starting to attract
big attention as the big publishers smell all the money being left on the
table at eBay and IGE. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I think
it's a good thing or not for games, but I know that many people reading this
message despise it with a passion. Part of this is probaby because making
money in the real world is a lot harder than making it in the game worlds,
and anything that gives an advantage to one group over the other is bound to
piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful
enough to earn the money one place or the other, right?

Anyway, there was a bit of an uproar when SOE's Smedley hinted at the
company's sanctioning of this practice in a recent communication, and now
Microsoft is suggesting the idea of institutionalizing it in their online
game world, at least on the console side initially with the idea of
"micro-transactions". Check out the story here.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...

Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
opponents of this practice?

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
March 9, 2005 4:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot
of
> controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension
of
> the free marketplace to the gaming worlds that are now starting to attract
> big attention as the big publishers smell all the money being left on the
> table at eBay and IGE. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I think
> it's a good thing or not for games, but I know that many people reading
this
> message despise it with a passion. Part of this is probaby because making
> money in the real world is a lot harder than making it in the game worlds,
> and anything that gives an advantage to one group over the other is bound
to
> piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful
> enough to earn the money one place or the other, right?

Everybody is different, so this will mean different things to different
people.

If you got Gamer A who can only play 1 to 2 hours a day 3 or 4 days a week,
after a couple of months he/she won't have that much "really cool stuff"...
but for Gamer B who puts in 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week... they often
will end up more powerful and with more powerful items after the same amount
of months playing.

By letting players buy and sell items found in the game, it lets the players
who don't play so much have a route to acquire items they might not
otherwise normally be able to.

To some this might sound "really lame" or "what a waste of 'real' money?"
but otherwise you would just end up with the most powerful characters either
just hoarding stuff or doling it out as free gifts to the others... that
means the items would either be effectivly "gone" from the game (they are in
the game, but nobody is using them) or what might be an otherwise
cool/valuable item becomes common stock found on the streets.

I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in
games where the high level players would often just give out all their
"useless" stuff to the next 1st level character around the corner. To the
new player this stuff is all amazing and godlike compared to the crummy
sword they buy at the store for 1gp... but as they use this stuff and get
used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item
depreciates because "everybody has one of those..."

On the other hand... there is resentment when the powerful get something and
don't value it because everything else they have is better... IE: the
developers might put in a really cool and unique +3 cloak... just to have
the item, a group of powerful characters goes out and gets it... but when
they have it they realise "geez, we all have +5 cloaks and this is only
+3... none of us want this" and so they just put the item into long term
storage... effectivly removing it from the game.... which can piss off the
lower level players because its better than what they have, but they can't
get it because its now gone from the game world.

Because these games attract so many different people there is no happy
medium: one player might be only able to put in 5 hours a week into a
game... somebody else can put in 100... another might work 30hrs a week at a
minimum wage job... somebody else makes $100 an hour...

So to sell an item for $150 on eBay... one might look at it like "it'll take
me 100 hours of playing before I can get that... at 5hrs a week thats almost
half a year" or "to buy that costs me almost a full weeks pay!"... while to
another player they might see it as "I can play for 1 week and have that
item myself!" or "$150? Its 3:30pm now... I'll make that much by 5pm from
my salary... why put in 100 hours if I just afford to buy that right now"


Clint
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 8:47:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com>, Bob Perez
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot of
> controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension of
> the free marketplace to the gaming worlds that are now starting to attract
> big attention as the big publishers smell all the money being left on the
> table at eBay and IGE. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I think
> it's a good thing or not for games, but I know that many people reading this
> message despise it with a passion. Part of this is probaby because making
> money in the real world is a lot harder than making it in the game worlds,
> and anything that gives an advantage to one group over the other is bound to
> piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful
> enough to earn the money one place or the other, right?

I think much of the opposition comes from a (justified) fear that
in-game sale of items will lead to the game becoming more expensive to
play. Want to see the interesting new zones? No problem, but you'll
have to fork over $3 for a new sword if you want to survive.

People don't like unpredictable cost models, which is one of the
reasons many will happily pay $50/month for phone service with
unlimited long-distance--even if their total bill on a metered plan
would be less.

> Anyway, there was a bit of an uproar when SOE's Smedley hinted at the
> company's sanctioning of this practice in a recent communication, and now
> Microsoft is suggesting the idea of institutionalizing it in their online
> game world, at least on the console side initially with the idea of
> "micro-transactions". Check out the story here.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...

I predict this will go over like a lead balloon, for the above reasons.

From the article:

Racing game enthusiasts, for example, will be able to buy a faster
car to give them an edge in the game for a slight bit more, should
they wish.

I really doubt that's going to fly. "I paid $50 for this lousy game,
and now they want me to pay more to race the car I want!?"

It might be possible to manage it with a game that sells for $10, and
makes up the extra by selling in-game upgrades, I guess. (Following
the model of Magic: The Gathering.)


> Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
> Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
> hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
> opponents of this practice?

Probably won't affect it at all.

If it does, it'll kill the game. Vanguard will promptly get a
reputation as "that game where you have to pay for uber equipment if
you want to see any of the content", regardless of whether it's
justified or not. I really don't see that happening, however, given
McQuaid's opinions.

- Damien
Related resources
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:08:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
> harder than making it in the game worlds,

The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work
online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? That
means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day
job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which
case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!
March 10, 2005 2:35:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <3999r5F5uknopU1@individual.net>, Imperial.Palace@Rome.com
says...

Even if you -can- sell items for real world cash, that isn't going to
stop high level characters from handing over their 'junk' to their
friends. Think about it... a +3 cloak that takes 20 hours to get, when
you have a +5 cloak... you expect most people to -care- about its market
value of $3.50?

Maybe you know people for whom 18c/h is a raise and who are looking at
making a career at this, but for me, I'd as soon give it away as sell
it.

If I was looking to make money I'd turn EQ off, work for 15 minutes, and
then play EQ for 19.75 hours and end up ahead.

Obviously there is a market for games in which you can buy and sell your
'stuff'. Equally obviously there is a market for games in which you
*cannot*.

Hopefully, eventually we'll each be able to play the kind of game we
want. Ideally the ebayers should have a legitmate secure means to
transact in their game and the anti-ebayer crowd should have a game
that's not polluted with ebayers.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 5:08:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <3999r5F5uknopU1@individual.net>,
"Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:

>I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in
>games where the high level players would often just give out all their
>"useless" stuff to the next 1st level character around the corner. To the
>new player this stuff is all amazing and godlike compared to the crummy
>sword they buy at the store for 1gp... but as they use this stuff and get
>used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item
>depreciates because "everybody has one of those..."


A few times, primarily in AC and AO, the generosity of other players actually
ruined the game for me. I didn't know how to refuse their gifts without
hurting their feelings, and I was left with little desire to continue. I just
walked into the world an hour ago, and BAM ! I got 2 mill in my bank
account.

The challenge and satisfaction from actually _earning_ my way in the game
was taken away.

Subsequently I learned how to refuse gracefully and let them help me in
a non-stuff way. " If you could just safely get me to X city, I'd be eternally
grateful " type thing. [ even if I didn't want to go ].

Jim
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 5:40:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot
of

Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this sort of
thing would be attractive to the weak minded.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:24:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3
-gui.ntli.net>, "Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
>news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
>> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot
>of
>
>Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
>merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
>fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this sort of
>thing would be attractive to the weak minded.


I just don't understand it. I realize there are a hell of a lot of young kids
whose rich [ or not ] parents will cough up whatever Johnny wants, as a
substitute for parenting, but anyone else of puberty or older paying out of
their own pocket ? Nope, baffles me.

What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
to _earning_ ? It's as repulsive to me as Smart buying his mail order PHD and
then claiming to be legit. Sickening really.

Jim
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:24:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:Q5PXd.626981$6l.160322@pd7tw2no...
>
> What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
> to _earning_ ? It's as repulsive to me as Smart buying his mail order PHD
> and
> then claiming to be legit. Sickening really.
>
> Jim

What's sickening is your fixation on Derek Smart.
March 10, 2005 8:39:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I have both bought and sold. I sold some stuff in EQ a long time ago.
Think I got $300 for SSoY.

In SWG around when the holocrons first came out I was going out hunting
for hrs trying to get one. I spent 4 days at least 6hrs a night trying
to get a drop. I looked at the time I was spending and thought i could
definately make better use. I ended up buy 10million credits to buy a
couple holocrons. I figured then I could at least be working towards a
profession. To me the money didn't matter so much because I was
putting in huge amounts of time.

Months later I sold my SWG account for $2k. DO I feel bad about it.
No not at all. I don't see how it harms anyone that someone bought my
account. Somebody obviously wants to play without doing the legwork.
More power too them.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:40:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote in message
news:ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
> news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a
lot
> of
>
> Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
> merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
> fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this sort
of
> thing would be attractive to the weak minded.
>
>
I would be worried that the game designers would have a disincentive to
create a fair game. Simply by selling the basic model car (for example),
letting them win a few races then fewer and fewer unless they pony up for an
'upgrade'... then another... then another....

There's a lot of con games like that.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:51:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Shadow" <kitchen@fis.org.nz> wrote in message
news:%ZRXd.191525$K7.77657@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote in message
> news:ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
> > news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> > > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a
> lot
> > of
> >
> > Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
> > merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
> > fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this
sort
> of
> > thing would be attractive to the weak minded.
> >
> >
> I would be worried that the game designers would have a disincentive to
> create a fair game. Simply by selling the basic model car (for example),
> letting them win a few races then fewer and fewer unless they pony up for
an
> 'upgrade'... then another... then another....
>
> There's a lot of con games like that.

In their greed to make money with this I think they would find not many
people playing these games. Just because a few percent of people ebay stuff
etc, doesnt mean the whole gaming population would welcome it. More likely
the opposite.

I could see it possibly working for single player games.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:16:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:47:16 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:

<snip>
> If it does, it'll kill the game. Vanguard will promptly get a
> reputation as "that game where you have to pay for uber equipment if
> you want to see any of the content", regardless of whether it's
> justified or not. I really don't see that happening, however, given
> McQuaid's opinions.

The only problem is that it isn't Brad's money on the line. If MS says
you'll do it then he has three options. Either cave in and let it happen,
quit and publically oppose it or do nothing.


--
RJB
3/10/2005 10:56:57 AM

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Answer: I would not
live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were
supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live
forever, which is why I would not live forever.
-Miss Alabama, in the 1994 Miss Universe contest
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote in message
news:Z_NXd.22546$fW4.673042@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
>> harder than making it in the game worlds,
>
> The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work
> online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? That
> means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day
> job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which
> case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!

Well, my point was that some resentment may be based on the disparity
between the haves and the have-nots. The guy who doesn't have a lot of
disposable income wants to compete with the guy who does. If it were just a
matter of grinding out crafting levels and making money in game, THAT he
could do and on that playing field he could win. But in the real world money
doesn't come that easily, it's far harder to earn and in that race he is
disadvantaged and therefore resentful.

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:01:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:Q5PXd.626981$6l.160322@pd7tw2no...

> What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
> to _earning_ ?

But Jim, suppose the guy's busted his ass in real life to earn the money he
then used to buy the ingame items? Whether he earns it in the game or earns
it in real life, he's still earned it, no? Moreover, earning real life money
is much harder than doing it in any of these games, and one could argue that
using that hard-earned cash to reward oneself in game will result in items
that are *more* valued to the purchaser than the guy who's bot farmed his
way to in-game wealth. The guy who purchased his Sword of Condign with RL
cash has actually done something productive in the economy to get the cash
used to buy the Sword, and may take great pride in this fact. Can you say
that about the guy who spent 16 hours of his life camping Foozle?

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <p_NXd.625781$6l.400532@pd7tw2no>,
bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:
>In article <3999r5F5uknopU1@individual.net>,
> "Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:
>
>>I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in
>>games where the high level players would often just give out all their
>>"useless" stuff to the next 1st level character around the corner. To
the
>>new player this stuff is all amazing and godlike compared to the crummy
>>sword they buy at the store for 1gp... but as they use this stuff and get
>>used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item
>>depreciates because "everybody has one of those..."
>
>
>A few times, primarily in AC and AO, the generosity of other players
actually
>ruined the game for me. I didn't know how to refuse their gifts without
>hurting their feelings, and I was left with little desire to continue. I
just
>walked into the world an hour ago, and BAM ! I got 2 mill in my bank
>account.
>
>The challenge and satisfaction from actually _earning_ my way in the game
>was taken away.
>
>Subsequently I learned how to refuse gracefully and let them help me in
>a non-stuff way. " If you could just safely get me to X city, I'd be
eternally
>grateful " type thing. [ even if I didn't want to go ].

Interesting. In Real Work, my biggest bitch was people who
wanted to "help". I had no skills to give them a task that
helped get them momentarily out of the way. :-)

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:12:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <%ZRXd.191525$K7.77657@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Shadow" <kitchen@fis.org.nz> wrote:
>
>"Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote in message
>news:ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
>> news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
>> > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a
>lot
>> of
>>
>> Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
>> merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
>> fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this
sort
>of
>> thing would be attractive to the weak minded.
>>
>>
>I would be worried that the game designers would have a disincentive to
>create a fair game. Simply by selling the basic model car (for example),
>letting them win a few races then fewer and fewer unless they pony up for
an
>'upgrade'... then another... then another....
>
>There's a lot of con games like that.

That happens to be Misoft's business model for its system
software. This itemized buy/selling within a game may be
a preamble for the OS side of its software biz.

Interesting wrinkle.

/BAH



Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 3:24:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:11319jg8gib4050@news.supernews.com...
>
> "foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
> news:Q5PXd.626981$6l.160322@pd7tw2no...
>
> > What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
> > to _earning_ ?
>
> But Jim, suppose the guy's busted his ass in real life to earn the money
he
> then used to buy the ingame items? Whether he earns it in the game or
earns
> it in real life, he's still earned it, no?

No. He earned the money to by the item. He didnt earn the item in game
terms.

Moreover, earning real life money
> is much harder than doing it in any of these games, and one could argue
that
> using that hard-earned cash to reward oneself in game will result in items
> that are *more* valued to the purchaser than the guy who's bot farmed his
> way to in-game wealth.


Gogo generalisations. What if the guy is stealing so he can buy in game
items? He earned them then? What if he inherited his cash, then bought
items, guess he earned them then too.

Problem is earning something in RL has nothing or should have nothing to do
with earning something in a game.

The guy who purchased his Sword of Condign with RL
> cash has actually done something productive in the economy to get the cash
> used to buy the Sword, and may take great pride in this fact. Can you say
> that about the guy who spent 16 hours of his life camping Foozle?

Yes, the guy who camped for 16hours earned it, the guy who bought it did not
earn it, he got some money and bought it off somebody who DID earn it, in
the context of the game.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:31:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I liked the way EQ2 handled the situation. Most magic items must be
'attuned' to you, meaning you can either use it or hand it/sell it, but
not both (i.e. once it is attuned, nobody else can use it). To me,
measures like this or some sort of item decay are necessary if you want
to have crafting being any part of your economy (otherwise, say 6
months after game is released, how could a new crafter compete at all
against all the drops from mobs that have been generated, plus vs. all
the crafters that came before him, etc?)
Of course, you'd still have people making or finding these things and
selling them in their 'unattuned' form, but how's this any different
from people doing the same thing in game?
Obviously, another thing to add is that the game should limit an item's
effectiveness to the level of the wielder, in other words, me wielding
Excalibur shouldn't make me a better swordsman than an experienced
fighter with an iron sword.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:37:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bob Perez wrote:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...
>
> Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
> Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
> hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
> opponents of this practice?
>
Doesn't this announcement refer to games hosted on free servers, not
games based on monthly subscription fees? Clearly, Vanguard and most
other MMORPGs would require a complete redesign if this were to become
the norm, and I'm not sure if the genre could survive at all. ("Click
here to gain level 65 with full raid gear! -- just $99.95 - VISA, MC,
AMEX")
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:43:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >In article <11319jg8gib4050@news.supernews.com>,
> >myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...
>
> >> Whether he earns it in the game or earns
> >> it in real life, he's still earned it, no?
>
> >No.
>
> >Some things aren't for sale. Personal achievement is one of those
> >things.
>
> >If you try to buy it you just cheapen it for everyone, your a poser.
>
> >Max level, items, flags, are thought by many to be personal
achievments
> >in EQ.
>
> Honestly, I don't think the game workings and rules should
> necessarily be structured towards pleasing those people. If
> it turns out pleasing them is the best way to make money,
> sure. But it might not be.

Well, I'm of the opinion that it is. Even though I play computer games
to relax and as a diversion, I still need there to be some point to
what I'm doing - some carrot to keep me interested. If it becomes too
close to instant gratification, it becomes far less interesting, and
I'll go find something else to do.

> >For them the point of the game is to achieve them, if you buy
> >them then you didn't achieve them and it cheapens it for everyone.
>
> No, it just cheapens it for people who care about that sort of thing.

For the record, I think that is actually the majority. Seriously, what
other motivation is there beyond being able to socialize with friends?
If it's just the socialization aspect, why pay $14.95 or more per month
for that when you can get it from any number of IRC or other chat
rooms?

I'm trying to remain open minded here, and do realize that others get
other things out of the game, but we are still talking primarily about
a *gaming* community here.

> >A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion,
olympic
> >medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
> >achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
> >meaning to everyone.
>
> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
> pure apples and oranges.

The scale is obviously different, but the point is valid. Any
achievement is lessened when it is purchased rather than "achieved".

> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

Are you a father? If you are, then you shouldn't even need to ask that
question. In case you're not, let me clue you in. When it's given to
you by a loved one, the tecnical validity of the claim matters not. All
that is important is that the giver feels that way. If you buy it
yourself, then yeah, it's pretty lame and amounts pretty much to what
the previous poster was criticizing - false achievement.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:52:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> >A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion,
olympic
> >medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
> >achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
> >meaning to everyone.
>
> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
> pure apples and oranges.

I don't think that he was directly comparing the two. He was saying
that the olympic medal would be meaningless if you could pay for it.
If you could pay your country's olympic team selection comittee to be
selected to go to the olympics and you could pay the other competitors
to let you win then the win is meaningless. If everyone could do that
and all the olympic winners from now on were the people who could bid
more than the others then all olympic medals would be meaningless.

In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
everyone else bought it.


> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
be Father of the Year does it actually impress you? Or do you just
assume that it was bought from a shop? To me, it wouldn't even suggest
that they were good father.

steve.kaye
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 5:20:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <11319jg8gib4050@news.supernews.com>,
>myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...

>> Whether he earns it in the game or earns
>> it in real life, he's still earned it, no?

>No.

>Some things aren't for sale. Personal achievement is one of those
>things.

>If you try to buy it you just cheapen it for everyone, your a poser.

>Max level, items, flags, are thought by many to be personal achievments
>in EQ.

Honestly, I don't think the game workings and rules should
necessarily be structured towards pleasing those people. If
it turns out pleasing them is the best way to make money,
sure. But it might not be.

>For them the point of the game is to achieve them, if you buy
>them then you didn't achieve them and it cheapens it for everyone.

No, it just cheapens it for people who care about that sort of thing.

>A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion, olympic
>medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
>achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
>meaning to everyone.

Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
pure apples and oranges.

And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

Pete
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:04:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg steve.kaye <nospam@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Meilinger wrote:

>> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
>> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
>> pure apples and oranges.

>I don't think that he was directly comparing the two. He was saying
>that the olympic medal would be meaningless if you could pay for it.

Not really. I can look up the people who won the various Olympic
events anytime I want. Just owning the medal doesn't make you
an Olympic medal winner. It'd be the same in a game - if people
really care whether someone "earned" or bought his equipment,
there are easy enough ways to differentiate the two.

>If you could pay your country's olympic team selection comittee to be
>selected to go to the olympics and you could pay the other competitors
>to let you win then the win is meaningless. If everyone could do that
>and all the olympic winners from now on were the people who could bid
>more than the others then all olympic medals would be meaningless.

Sure. But that's nothing at all like what's being discussed.
Being able to buy items with out-of-game cash is like having
a system where Olympic athletes have to work hard to earn
good equipment, but then someone comes along who bought the
equipment on his own. More power to him, I say, but he's
still going to have to compete with everyone else.

>In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
>everyone else bought it.

Not to me. And don't people buy and sell magical items within
the game anyway? If so, I don't see any important difference.

>> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
>> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
>> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

>When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
>be Father of the Year does it actually impress you?

Of course not. But when I hear about a game character with a
super-cool magic item, that doesn't impress me, either.

Pete
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:04:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 11 Mar 2005 15:04:01 GMT, Peter Meilinger wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg steve.kaye <nospam@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
>>Peter Meilinger wrote:
>
>>> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
>>> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
>>> pure apples and oranges.
>
>>I don't think that he was directly comparing the two. He was saying
>>that the olympic medal would be meaningless if you could pay for it.
>
> Not really. I can look up the people who won the various Olympic
> events anytime I want. Just owning the medal doesn't make you
> an Olympic medal winner. It'd be the same in a game - if people
> really care whether someone "earned" or bought his equipment,
> there are easy enough ways to differentiate the two.
How so? If a person playing EQ off and on for five years who doesn't have a
guild (maybe they're not into guilds) just wants to get some of the "oober"
gear the guildies have. S/he has been playing and grouping for years. How
could you tell the gear was bought?

>
>>If you could pay your country's olympic team selection comittee to be
>>selected to go to the olympics and you could pay the other competitors
>>to let you win then the win is meaningless. If everyone could do that
>>and all the olympic winners from now on were the people who could bid
>>more than the others then all olympic medals would be meaningless.
>
> Sure. But that's nothing at all like what's being discussed.
> Being able to buy items with out-of-game cash is like having
> a system where Olympic athletes have to work hard to earn
> good equipment, but then someone comes along who bought the
> equipment on his own. More power to him, I say, but he's
> still going to have to compete with everyone else.
He's also going to have to compete with the increased camping for items. If
MS says they're going to sell ingame items you know some people will think
it's open season for them to start harvesting items themselves.

>>In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
>>everyone else bought it.
>
> Not to me. And don't people buy and sell magical items within
> the game anyway? If so, I don't see any important difference.
There is a big difference between ingame money and real money.

>>> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
>>> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
>>> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?
>
>>When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
>>be Father of the Year does it actually impress you?
>
> Of course not. But when I hear about a game character with a
> super-cool magic item, that doesn't impress me, either.
I'll agree with you here. What does impress me is someone who can overcome
the challenges the game gives them and gains the super-cool magic item.
Just opening a wallet does not.


--
RJB
3/11/2005 10:19:15 AM

"If a trainstation is where the train stops, what's a workstation...?"
-Anon.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:51:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg RJB <robartle@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 11 Mar 2005 15:04:01 GMT, Peter Meilinger wrote:

>> It'd be the same in a game - if people
>> really care whether someone "earned" or bought his equipment,
>> there are easy enough ways to differentiate the two.

>How so? If a person playing EQ off and on for five years who doesn't have a
>guild (maybe they're not into guilds) just wants to get some of the "oober"
>gear the guildies have. S/he has been playing and grouping for years. How
>could you tell the gear was bought?

Sorry - I didn't mean you can tell the difference now, but that
the game designers could make the difference obvious if they
cared to.

>>>In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
>>>everyone else bought it.
>>
>> Not to me. And don't people buy and sell magical items within
>> the game anyway? If so, I don't see any important difference.

>There is a big difference between ingame money and real money.

Sure. Real money's more important. But it's all based on time
doing some sort of activity, unless we're talking about the
independently wealthy. I don't much care if someone gets
enough money to buy Super-Item X through working in the game
or out of it.

>>>When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
>>>be Father of the Year does it actually impress you?
>>
>> Of course not. But when I hear about a game character with a
>> super-cool magic item, that doesn't impress me, either.

>I'll agree with you here. What does impress me is someone who can overcome
>the challenges the game gives them and gains the super-cool magic item.
>Just opening a wallet does not.

But if they can buy the items with money from inside the game,
how is that any better than with real money? As I understand
it, there are ways in most games to make money without really
overcoming any significant challenges.

Pete
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:51:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 11 Mar 2005 15:51:06 GMT, Peter Meilinger wrote:

<snip>
>>There is a big difference between ingame money and real money.
>
> Sure. Real money's more important. But it's all based on time
> doing some sort of activity, unless we're talking about the
> independently wealthy. I don't much care if someone gets
> enough money to buy Super-Item X through working in the game
> or out of it.
It's not the point of the money. It's the end result that is the point. If
the companies open it up to selling things for real money then it will
validate the other thousand morons on the server who are camping for IGE.
Kill stealing and camping were bad enough in EQ where it was outlawed - I'd
hate to see what happens when it isn't.

>>>>When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
>>>>be Father of the Year does it actually impress you?
>>>
>>> Of course not. But when I hear about a game character with a
>>> super-cool magic item, that doesn't impress me, either.
>
>>I'll agree with you here. What does impress me is someone who can overcome
>>the challenges the game gives them and gains the super-cool magic item.
>>Just opening a wallet does not.
>
> But if they can buy the items with money from inside the game,
> how is that any better than with real money? As I understand
> it, there are ways in most games to make money without really
> overcoming any significant challenges.
Ok, I want to clarify something here. I'm against buying *any* items
(either ingame or out) with real money. It will trigger what I've mentioned
above. Now as to "game" money, yes, there will be those that will camp and
sell "game" items for ingame cash. That's the way it shall ever be. I can
live with that - they took the time ingame to camp the item, were skilled
enough to overcome those challenges and deserve to make an ingame profit.
What I can't abide is the person that camps the item, sells it then sells
the cash to IGE. That fuels the buyers of such ingame cash to go out and
buy even more stuff ingame perpetuating the cycle. The end result is that
it's bad for the game unless there is a way to draw off cash and items. EQ
shows this problem with it's mudflation. I can't blame the developers
necessarily - they're game designers not economists, but now knowing what
they know if they themselves start this cycle (without taking measures to
combat the cycle) then they're cutting their own throat.


--
RJB
3/11/2005 10:55:35 AM

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Answer: I would not
live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were
supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live
forever, which is why I would not live forever.
-Miss Alabama, in the 1994 Miss Universe contest
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:03:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:D 0sc11$9gk$1@news3.bu.edu...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg steve.kaye <nospam@giddy-kippers.co.uk>
wrote:
> >Peter Meilinger wrote:
>
> >> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
> >> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
> >> pure apples and oranges.
>
> >I don't think that he was directly comparing the two. He was saying
> >that the olympic medal would be meaningless if you could pay for it.
>
> Not really. I can look up the people who won the various Olympic
> events anytime I want. Just owning the medal doesn't make you
> an Olympic medal winner. It'd be the same in a game - if people
> really care whether someone "earned" or bought his equipment,
> there are easy enough ways to differentiate the two.
>
> >If you could pay your country's olympic team selection comittee to be
> >selected to go to the olympics and you could pay the other competitors
> >to let you win then the win is meaningless. If everyone could do that
> >and all the olympic winners from now on were the people who could bid
> >more than the others then all olympic medals would be meaningless.
>
> Sure. But that's nothing at all like what's being discussed.
> Being able to buy items with out-of-game cash is like having
> a system where Olympic athletes have to work hard to earn
> good equipment, but then someone comes along who bought the
> equipment on his own. More power to him, I say, but he's
> still going to have to compete with everyone else.
>
> >In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
> >everyone else bought it.
>
> Not to me. And don't people buy and sell magical items within
> the game anyway? If so, I don't see any important difference.

From the article: " Racing game enthusiasts, for example, will be able to
buy a faster car to give them an edge in the game for a slight bit more,
should they wish. "

I think this is the important difference. You will be able to get a car that
is better than your opponents if you pay the guy who owns the racetrack more
than the other guy. In real life, this is called bribery. If this is a
multiplayer game, and you can get better and better equipment by paying
more, then why not bias the game towards the people who will pay hundreds of
dollars more for a chance to humiliate an opponent. I'm not up with player
vs player games like counterstrike but i know how worked up people get about
being beaten. How would you feel about being beaten not by someone with
superior skills but simply a larger inheritance?

Heaven forbid Bill gates plays Gary kasparov in an online game of chess! The
board would be solid with extra queens...
March 11, 2005 9:22:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <11330q4598qmtff@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
says...
> Bob Perez wrote:
> >
> > http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...
> >
> > Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
> > Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
> > hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
> > opponents of this practice?
> >
> Doesn't this announcement refer to games hosted on free servers, not
> games based on monthly subscription fees? Clearly, Vanguard and most
> other MMORPGs would require a complete redesign if this were to become
> the norm, and I'm not sure if the genre could survive at all. ("Click
> here to gain level 65 with full raid gear! -- just $99.95 - VISA, MC,
> AMEX")
>

Anyone who thinks MS won't take a model that makes them some money and
apply to other products is on crack. Even if this announcement only
applied to one title that was only going to be released in Africa, you
can bet they're just itching to put it into everything they do if it
works.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:21:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

42 wrote:
> In article <11330q4598qmtff@corp.supernews.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com
> says...
>
>>Bob Perez wrote:
>>
>>>http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...
>>>
>>>Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
>>>Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
>>>hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
>>>opponents of this practice?
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't this announcement refer to games hosted on free servers, not
>>games based on monthly subscription fees? Clearly, Vanguard and most
>>other MMORPGs would require a complete redesign if this were to become
>>the norm, and I'm not sure if the genre could survive at all. ("Click
>>here to gain level 65 with full raid gear! -- just $99.95 - VISA, MC,
>>AMEX")
>
> Anyone who thinks MS won't take a model that makes them some money and
> apply to other products is on crack. Even if this announcement only
> applied to one title that was only going to be released in Africa, you
> can bet they're just itching to put it into everything they do if it
> works.

Not if MS thinks that by doing so they will destroy the reason
subscribers want to play the game in the first place. In other words,
the long term view might be more profitable than the short term view
when in comes to MMORPGs.

Anyway, this message was just posted today on Vanguard's boards:

"I've stated it on the boards before and I will state it again.
Microsoft has no plans to sell currency or items in Vanguard. We are
on the same page with Sigil in this regard."

"Microtransactions are actually a very cool idea for games w/o
subscriptions. In these games developers often like to make ongoing
content but without a monthly fee there is no way to fund that
content. Microtransactions make it possible to provide new levels
quickly and efficiently. The content is paid for by the small
transactions and it allows them to release content more quickly than
waiting for enough for a complete expansion. Because there's very
little(or no) persistence in these games there is no impact to a
virtual economy. The developer and publisher gets paid and the end
user gets new content at a low price. Everybody wins."

"I know there is a lot of anxiety about Microsoft on the boards. I
will make it very clear that while we have a lot of different
technologies to choose from, we are only going to implement the
features that make sense for Vanguard. We aren't going to do anything
to compromise this game."

"So relax guys."
__________________
L-Train
AKA Leon Pryor
Program Manager, RAT Studio
Microsoft Game Studios

That seems to make perfect sense to me. We'll just have to wait and
see how things pan out.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:59:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:11318qot6tr9df@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote in message
> news:Z_NXd.22546$fW4.673042@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
>>> harder than making it in the game worlds,
>>
>> The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time
>> work online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000?
>> That means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day
>> job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in
>> which case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!
>
> Well, my point was that some resentment may be based on the disparity
> between the haves and the have-nots. The guy who doesn't have a lot of
> disposable income wants to compete with the guy who does. If it were just
> a matter of grinding out crafting levels and making money in game, THAT he
> could do and on that playing field he could win. But in the real world
> money doesn't come that easily, it's far harder to earn and in that race
> he is disadvantaged and therefore resentful.
>

But having and not having is a part of real life. Letting the online world
approach the inequities of the real world just makes the online experience
all the more, umm, 'magical'...yeah, that's the word I was looking for.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 8:58:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Damien Neil <neild-usenet2@misago.org> once tried to test me with:

>> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...
>> ex.htm
>
> I predict this will go over like a lead balloon, for the above
> reasons.
>
> From the article:
>
> Racing game enthusiasts, for example, will be able to buy a faster
> car to give them an edge in the game for a slight bit more, should
> they wish.
>
> I really doubt that's going to fly. "I paid $50 for this lousy game,
> and now they want me to pay more to race the car I want!?"
>
> It might be possible to manage it with a game that sells for $10, and
> makes up the extra by selling in-game upgrades, I guess. (Following
> the model of Magic: The Gathering.)

And like MTG, I will not play it.

I really WANTED to play MTG, because I love the card game (with real
cards). But I could not see myself paying real-card prices for virtual
cards.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 9:02:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> once tried to test me with:

>> If it does, it'll kill the game. Vanguard will promptly get a
>> reputation as "that game where you have to pay for uber equipment if
>> you want to see any of the content", regardless of whether it's
>> justified or not. I really don't see that happening, however, given
>> McQuaid's opinions.
>
> The only problem is that it isn't Brad's money on the line. If MS says
> you'll do it then he has three options. Either cave in and let it happen,
> quit and publically oppose it or do nothing.

Doing nothing is equal to option 1. So essentially he has 2 choices:

1. Cave and let them do it.
2. Oppose it. If it comes to it, quit and continue to oppose it.

Option 1 gives him a fat paycheck and if the game doesn't happen to tank,
probably thrown more work from his master.

Option 2 leaves him with his integrity. And while I may not agree with some
of his design decisions in EQ, I'd respect him.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 1:44:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:1134djl200cfe09@corp.supernews.com...

> Anyway, this message was just posted today on Vanguard's boards:
>
> "I've stated it on the boards before and I will state it again.
> Microsoft has no plans to sell currency or items in Vanguard. We are
> on the same page with Sigil in this regard."

Ahh, thanks for the post, it's good to hear something authoritative and on
point and I like this decision. Still, I believe we'll have to see how this
actually plays out in the market once micro-transactions are in place. It
wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Microsoft change their view on this
if it appeared profitable to do so.

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 11:43:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9a8357cbf27971989a5f@shawnews...

> What of it? Getting an "A+" Rebuilding an engine yourself in shop class
> is not the same as paying a mechanic to do it, winning a marathon is not
> the same as buying a red ribbon, climbing a mountain is not the same
> thing as chartering a helicopter to drop you off at the top.

Woah, you got me there, made me look stupid here again.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:20:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:3-qdnStRf5SvZ6nfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>
> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c9a8357cbf27971989a5f@shawnews...
>
>> What of it? Getting an "A+" Rebuilding an engine yourself in shop class
>> is not the same as paying a mechanic to do it, winning a marathon is not
>> the same as buying a red ribbon, climbing a mountain is not the same
>> thing as chartering a helicopter to drop you off at the top.
>
> Woah, you got me there, made me look stupid here again.

Even a line this simple he gets wrong. Can't spell, can't write. LOL

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 6:03:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in
news:113aegps751l60d@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in
> message news:3-qdnStRf5SvZ6nfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>>
>> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c9a8357cbf27971989a5f@shawnews...
>>
>>> What of it? Getting an "A+" Rebuilding an engine yourself in shop
>>> class is not the same as paying a mechanic to do it, winning a
>>> marathon is not the same as buying a red ribbon, climbing a mountain
>>> is not the same thing as chartering a helicopter to drop you off at
>>> the top.
>>
>> Woah, you got me there, made me look stupid here again.
>
> Even a line this simple he gets wrong. Can't spell, can't write. LOL
>

Posting from a comcast account now, guess he had some difficulty with the
college access. :b

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 6:27:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns961951F73D05Brichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...

> Posting from a comcast account now, guess he had some difficulty with the
> college access. :b

Haha! That's pretty funny, until you stop and realize that the guy might
have been a college student? Nahhh, nm. What was I thinking?

--
Redbeard, the Lore Seeker
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of Qeynos Harbor
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:03:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:21:35 -0500, Briarroot <woodsyl@iwon.com>
wrote:
>"Microtransactions are actually a very cool idea for games w/o
>subscriptions. In these games developers often like to make ongoing
>content but without a monthly fee there is no way to fund that
>content.

Well then there's nothing new here, is there? I mean, there are two
expansions available for $5 each for Xbox's Project Gotham Racing 2.
It has new tracks, new cars, etc. If they want to complicate things
by chopping up what they sell further, fine.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 5:54:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in
news:113c76orl433944@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns961951F73D05Brichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
>
>> Posting from a comcast account now, guess he had some difficulty with
>> the college access. :b
>
> Haha! That's pretty funny, until you stop and realize that the guy
> might have been a college student? Nahhh, nm. What was I thinking?
>

I don't know, I think that makes it doubly funny.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:25:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

>http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...
>
>Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
>Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
>hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
>opponents of this practice?

No idea about Vanguard, but overall, it is a "good thing" in terms of
allowing a company flexibility on how to monetize their product (or
service, as is probably more the case). This has already happened in MMOG,
with those paying for xpaks getting extra content. The micro-transaction
issue is only an inevitable refinement.

I'm viewing this in more than the MMORPG framework that I think most folks
here are basing their replies upon. There are many instances where it
would be desirable to have a paid option to get extra help, eg a trivia
game where you can pay for hints, or a puzzle game or adventure game where
you can get stuck and frustrated. For these, an "out" or "bypass" option
would be worthwhile, and it wouldn't affect anyone else.

In games that have P-to-P interaction, such as with MMOGs, especially when
the interaction is competitive in nature, then care and finesse are needed
to preserve the original tenor of the interaction. How that is done is
then implementation dependent. As another has said, the bottom line is
customer satisfaction. If the "buy item" feature is poorly implemented,
then the company would lose customers, and more than likely the loss would
offset any incremental gain from said feature.

This isn't restricted to only "incremental sales." If or when virtual
worlds become more commonplace, then there'll be similar mercantile issues
in play, one of which will be in-game advertising. The answer to that, as
we all can guess, won't be yes or no, but how much. Non-mercantile issues
await as well. Some here have already imposed RL values in virtual worlds,
such as "achievements" and "fairness" and so forth. It's only a small step
from these to higher-order concepts such as morality. Should violence in
virtual worlds be regulated? Should the different races in v-worlds be
viewed as a mirror of RL's ethnic groups, and thereby having similar
constraints (eg equality and so forth). These notions may seem ludicrous
now, mainly due to the primitive nature of the current v-worlds. But if we
are to assume that v-worlds will become mainstream and evolve in
sophistication, then the issues will be very real, and they will be much
less tractable than the simple thought of selling in-game equipment, or
in-game advertising.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:25:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Some things aren't for sale. Personal achievement is one of those
>things.
>
>If you try to buy it you just cheapen it for everyone, your a poser.

"Personal achievements" in virtual worlds is, if not an oxymoron, then
highly dependent on (subjected to) one's perception.

>Max level, items, flags, are thought by many to be personal achievments
>in EQ. For them the point of the game is to achieve them, if you buy
>them then you didn't achieve them and it cheapens it for everyone.

It would depend on how the game is structured. I'd agree that some sort of
discrimination between the "paid/worked for it" would be desirable for
conventional issues such as equipment/prestige in a MMORPG setting.

>A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion, olympic
>medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
>achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
>meaning to everyone.

Not very relevant, as virtual worlds have little parallel with RL.
Following this line of logic, then all deaths in virt worlds should be
perma-death, lest death "lose its meaning."

>That's why i think there should be two games... one for those who want
>to pay for items, one who want them to just be earned. Ultimately
>neither person is inherently more right, and when you mix them together
>they just fight endlessly. =)

As above, I'd agree on some form of discrimination, but not necessarily
separation, least of which is separation of (virtual) worlds. That would
be a fairly ham-handed way of handling it.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:26:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:

>> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
>> harder than making it in the game worlds,
>
>The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work
>online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? That
>means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day
>job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which
>case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!

1) US$10K would be attractive to more than just teenagers, eg non-US
people, non-fully employed, etc. 2) Unlike RL, equity in game worlds can
be gained procedurally, and can be automated to a substantial extent. If
you approach the building of characters with a commercial mindset, and once
the "build-up" parameters are known and routinized, then character farming
wouldn't be that much less feasible than WOW's much lamented gold farming.
It would only take longer, plus the possible drawback that characters as
equity aren't as liquid as gold, say.
March 24, 2005 5:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <r72441pq1o6fb248352q8jtg7u9hi802pf@4ax.com>, bop@boo.net
says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Some things aren't for sale. Personal achievement is one of those
> >things.
> >
> >If you try to buy it you just cheapen it for everyone, your a poser.
>
> "Personal achievements" in virtual worlds is, if not an oxymoron, then
> highly dependent on (subjected to) one's perception.

That's just being arrogant. I could say the same of the guy who works
his way up from fry guy to store manager.

> >Max level, items, flags, are thought by many to be personal achievments
> >in EQ. For them the point of the game is to achieve them, if you buy
> >them then you didn't achieve them and it cheapens it for everyone.
>
> It would depend on how the game is structured. I'd agree that some sort of
> discrimination between the "paid/worked for it" would be desirable for
> conventional issues such as equipment/prestige in a MMORPG setting.

> >A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion, olympic
> >medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
> >achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
> >meaning to everyone.
>
> Not very relevant, as virtual worlds have little parallel with RL.
> Following this line of logic, then all deaths in virt worlds should be
> perma-death, lest death "lose its meaning."

Quite right, if you wanted to carry over the meaning of death in an
mmrpg, it *should* be permanent.

As it is now... death in virtual worlds like EQ is barely a deterrent
nevermind the "end of all". As it is I will suicide a raid target just
to gauge its melee output. I will suicide rush a deep spawn just to see
if a target I want to kill is up. (e.g. if there's no tracker, and I
don't feel like spending an hour fighting my way in just to find out my
target is down). Death HAS NO MEANING; I can trivially just summon
corpse and rez it.

It would be -nice- if death did have a meaning... then I might try to
avoid it.

> >That's why i think there should be two games... one for those who want
> >to pay for items, one who want them to just be earned. Ultimately
> >neither person is inherently more right, and when you mix them together
> >they just fight endlessly. =)
>
> As above, I'd agree on some form of discrimination, but not necessarily
> separation, least of which is separation of (virtual) worlds. That would
> be a fairly ham-handed way of handling it.

Its the *only* way to handle it.

If it was just a matter of pride, maybe. But its more than a matter of
prestige. It is -part- of the role-playing-game ethos that you are not
you.

Its like a masque with people who show up out of costume. Mixxing the
two tends to ruin the party for those who took the time to make a
costume.

Masques work best if everyone wears one. Likewise, mmrpgs for
roleplayers (they are the the RP in mmorpg after all and should be
catered too) work best if the roleplayers don't have to share territory
with the ebayers. Of course that ideal may never be practically
acheivable, but legitimizing ebayers will only worsen the situation for
the roleplayers. Better to just let them separate and run on a server
where ebaying is strictly disallowed... its what they -WANT-.
March 24, 2005 5:49:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <n824419skb1pc5qkrk09hc8tj9l7oksk46@4ax.com>, bop@boo.net
says...
> "Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
> >> harder than making it in the game worlds,
> >
> >The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work
> >online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? That
> >means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day
> >job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which
> >case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!
>
> 1) US$10K would be attractive to more than just teenagers, eg non-US
> people, non-fully employed, etc.

> 2) Unlike RL, equity in game worlds can
> be gained procedurally, and can be automated to a substantial extent.

Anything of value that can be gained procedurally and automated rapidly
with no input of rescources or capital ceases to have any value at all
because supply is effectively limitless.

The only reason plat farmers can make any money is that they are a
pretty small fringe subset of the player base. As soon as it became
legitimate, accepted, and supported as a way to make a living (or
supplant it). The number of people doing it would skyrocket and the
value of anything gained in this manner would rapidly drop to near zero.

> If
> you approach the building of characters with a commercial mindset, and once
> the "build-up" parameters are known and routinized, then character farming
> wouldn't be that much less feasible than WOW's much lamented gold farming.
> It would only take longer, plus the possible drawback that characters as
> equity aren't as liquid as gold, say.

You neglected to mention that the game owners might not relish the
thought of being used like this and might take any of several easy steps
to interfere with it.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 5:06:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>>> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
>>> harder than making it in the game worlds,

>"Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote in message
>> The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work
>> online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000?
>> That means you can earn $10,000 per year.

That's probably high for full-time play for fun. I'd expect it's low if you
play as if it were work. If you concentrate on working efficiently, playing
those servers with the most customers, camping only items which sell well, and
truly optimizing your use of time, and being willing to do some trading
(buy low, sell high) in addition to selling items you acquire yourself, I'd
guess you can double that figure, probably more.

>> Hardly enough to quit your day
>> job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which
>> case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!

Umm, not enough to quit your cushy first-world professional job, maybe. It's
a huge step up for workers in many places in the world, and in the US for
a small-fraction-but-large-number of adults.

Fortunately (for those who don't like the practice), the market is very
limited, and won't be able to support many professionals.

Bob Perez <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>Well, my point was that some resentment may be based on the disparity
>between the haves and the have-nots.

Yes. The resentment comes from that. The market ALSO comes from that. There
are haves and have-nots in the amount of time/energy available to play too.

Some who have time and no money feel their time gets devalued by real money
sales. Some trade time for money by selling items. Some who have money and
no time feel like they'll never catch up, and get frustrated with the game.
Some trade money for time and buy items.

>disposable income wants to compete with the guy who does. If it were just a
>matter of grinding out crafting levels and making money in game, THAT he
>could do and on that playing field he could win. But in the real world money
>doesn't come that easily, it's far harder to earn and in that race he is
>disadvantaged and therefore resentful.

What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still wants to
play/compete?
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 5:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >Some things aren't for sale. Personal achievement is one of those
>> >things. If you try to buy it you just cheapen it for everyone, your a poser.

>bop@boo.net says...
>> "Personal achievements" in virtual worlds is, if not an oxymoron, then
>> highly dependent on (subjected to) one's perception.

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>That's just being arrogant.

Perhaps, but it's still true.

>I could say the same of the guy who works
>his way up from fry guy to store manager.

And you'd be right. His achievement is personal to him, and the fact that
some other guy became manager of a store because his brother owns the place or
because he could go to college does not detract from it.

>> >Max level, items, flags, are thought by many to be personal achievments
>> >in EQ.

Fine, achievement of those things can be personal wins for those who
chose that particular challenge of the game. And they are, regardless of
whether others get the results without the achievement.

>> >For them the point of the game is to achieve them, if you buy
>> >them then you didn't achieve them and it cheapens it for everyone.

That's silly. They worked no less hard, got no less lucky, and get no less
from the use of the item regardless of how many others have them, by whatever
means.

>> It would depend on how the game is structured. I'd agree that some sort of
>> discrimination between the "paid/worked for it" would be desirable for
>> conventional issues such as equipment/prestige in a MMORPG setting.

Prestige yes, equipment no.

>> >A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion, olympic
>> >medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
>> >achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
>> >meaning to everyone.

You can, in fact, buy many medals and trophys on ebay. Please distinguish the
prestige of being awarded an honor and the prestige of carrying the ribbon.
While you're at it, note the distinction between the joy of defeating an enemy
to acquire an item and the joy of having and using the item.

>> >That's why i think there should be two games... one for those who want
>> >to pay for items, one who want them to just be earned. Ultimately
>> >neither person is inherently more right, and when you mix them together
>> >they just fight endlessly. =)

Sure. Also separate those who play once a week and those who play twice and
those who play four times and those who play a lot. And separate those who
just buy a few things from those who buy an entire castle. And separate those
who don't like in-game trades of items, which is really just a lesser version
of cash purchases.

Oh, but what if two friends want to play together? Darn.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 1:54:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bip" <bop@boo.net> wrote in message
news:n72441hqjvkm8qu2b239kltfh2rvogjbbd@4ax.com...
> "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gd...
m
> >
> >Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
> >Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of
most
> >hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
> >opponents of this practice?
>
> No idea about Vanguard, but overall, it is a "good thing" in terms of
> allowing a company flexibility on how to monetize their product (or
> service, as is probably more the case). This has already happened in
MMOG,
> with those paying for xpaks getting extra content. The micro-transaction
> issue is only an inevitable refinement.

Extra content is entirely different to what is being proposed. What is on
offer is better gear etc when you make a payment. The example given by them
was in a racing game, the person paying the most gets the best car, not to
see different tracks.

>
> I'm viewing this in more than the MMORPG framework that I think most folks
> here are basing their replies upon. There are many instances where it
> would be desirable to have a paid option to get extra help, eg a trivia
> game where you can pay for hints, or a puzzle game or adventure game where
> you can get stuck and frustrated. For these, an "out" or "bypass" option
> would be worthwhile, and it wouldn't affect anyone else.

this is a different issue and in most cases that already exists.
>
> In games that have P-to-P interaction, such as with MMOGs, especially when
> the interaction is competitive in nature, then care and finesse are needed
> to preserve the original tenor of the interaction. How that is done is
> then implementation dependent. As another has said, the bottom line is
> customer satisfaction. If the "buy item" feature is poorly implemented,
> then the company would lose customers, and more than likely the loss would
> offset any incremental gain from said feature.

The danger is that it would be very tempting for designers to give people
'incentives' to use the payment system. The example of the racing car that
they gave in the article translates into gear in MMOGs, such as armor or
weaponry. If for example, to get an 'epic', on must solo Blarg the Wondrous,
then people who simply play the game might find the encounter impossible.
The 'Princes' who come from real life wealthy backgrounds will lord it over
the 'peons' who work in game for what they get. If the base cost of the
game is often all you are going to be able to afford, do you really want
some Saudi prince to be able to buy their way into the top levels of the
game? Would you like it if it was between you and that prince as to who
could join a group, and they pick the prince because his gear is better than
you would ever be able to earn?
>
> This isn't restricted to only "incremental sales." If or when virtual
> worlds become more commonplace, then there'll be similar mercantile issues
> in play, one of which will be in-game advertising. The answer to that, as
> we all can guess, won't be yes or no, but how much.

This would break immersion for most games. The recent debacle about /pizza
in EQ2 is an example of how people despise this sort of link. You are
already paying for the game. To pay and still have to watch irrelevant
advertising is maddening and one of the reasons people buy DVDs rather than
watch movies. I think the introduction of inappropriate advertising would
increase interest in other games. They are big now, but something like this
could destabilise what is quite a fragile market. Something else will appear
to fill the void and we won't have any idea what it is. Maybe virtual
reality where you physically interact with the environment with force
feedback or maybe something we can't even conceive of.


Non-mercantile issues
> await as well. Some here have already imposed RL values in virtual
worlds,
> such as "achievements" and "fairness" and so forth. It's only a small
step
> from these to higher-order concepts such as morality. Should violence in
> virtual worlds be regulated?

Already is. Some games are banned in australia. If someone did a MMOG of
GTA, i expect it would be banned straight away.

> Should the different races in v-worlds be
> viewed as a mirror of RL's ethnic groups, and thereby having similar
> constraints (eg equality and so forth).

This is the first time I've seen this matter raised and i doubt highly many
people would see any relationship. Orc rights now? Goblins unfairly depicted
in LOTR? Sauron sues for defamation?

>These notions may seem ludicrous
> now, mainly due to the primitive nature of the current v-worlds.

Or just ludicrous full stop.
March 25, 2005 10:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <v7qbh2-i1r.ln1@hydra.dagon.net>, dagon@dagon.net says...

> What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still wants to
> play/compete?

What of them? You make it sound like they're somehow entitled...

Consider Chess ... Gary Kasparov doesn't play in the same league as Joe
Idiot who doesn't have time to learn the game, study it, practice it,
and earn his rank in tournaments... still if Joe Idiot wants to compete
he should be able to buy a ranking on ebay and play with the Tier 1
players, right?

The very idea that just because they -want- to be the best that somehow
entitles them to it is just pathetic.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:08:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>dagon@dagon.net says...
>> What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still
>> wants to play/compete?

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>What of them? You make it sound like they're somehow entitled...

So the argument becomes: people with time and no money are entitled to play,
and people with money and no time are not?

>Consider Chess ... Gary Kasparov doesn't play in the same league as Joe
>Idiot who doesn't have time to learn the game, study it, practice it,
>and earn his rank in tournaments... still if Joe Idiot wants to compete
>he should be able to buy a ranking on ebay and play with the Tier 1
>players, right?

Chess is a competition, RPGs are not.

>The very idea that just because they -want- to be the best that somehow
>entitles them to it is just pathetic.

Ahh, you're confusing "want to be the best" with "want to experience the
game".
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
!