|
On January 10 2012 00:06 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I think, the most important question is: How would other people buying gear/gold effect me?
QFT. Unless you've got RL money on the line it shouldn't matter and with MMO's you only get to that point when you're basically in the top .5% or better. I don't see it being a problem at all in D3 since PvP more than likely isn't going to be competitive at all(there will be a niche group as always, but even Blizz said they're not gonna support it all that much).
The only thing the RMAH is going to do for D3 is give the more hardcore players a chance to make a bit of money off the more casual players. This will more than likely help with all the recent problems MMO's have been having with casual players complaining about difficult/time consuming content, since they can just buy the end game gear and get there quicker(doesn't mean there won't still be people that are gonna complain)
In the end i think the RMAH will become flooded with gold/items and over-inflation will happen quickly (maybe not in the first month or 2 but it'll happen). The over-inflation will turn people towards the Gold AH and with Gold being sold for super cheap on the RMAH the prices there will be stupidly high for the people who play legit and don't want to buy gold or get good drops to sell.
Overall it won't effect me in the least, even if i play more casually I'm not gonna spend money on a game past the initial cost, added DLC or subscription fee. It their money, let them spend it on useless digital objects that more than likely will have no effect on other aspects of their life.
|
I'm against it for a handful of reasons.
Firstly, it cheapens my own (and other legit players') efforts. Say aquiring gear takes a lot of time and effort. If you could somehow circumvent the ingame method of gaining gear for yourself, you'd indirectly be pissing in the face of everyone who actually went through the work of getting that gear. "But", you might say, "If there's an auction system in-game that allows gear to be traded with in-game money, doesn't this already allow players to circumvent the gear grinding process?" This is a good point, but remember - to buy stuff off the in-game auction system, you need in-game money, which you somehow need to aquire in-game. Getting a lot of money in a game usually requires a lot of effort, so in effect, it'd be equalized to grinding a lot for the gear. Buying gear (or money) from thirdparty sources skips this stage, making a joke out of the efforts of everyone playing the game legitimately.
That said, if the game provider would offer a pay-for-service to aquire the said gear or money through real-life money transactions, then I'd say the payment system be a legitimate way of aquiring gear while not breaking the game. Since it'd be provided by the game makers, it would also be a deliberately added feature of the game. This is, by the way, a common menthod of doing "free to play" games.
Of course, any game designed to allow significant game advantages through players spending real-life money compared to non-spending (legal) players is terrible from a base gameplay perspective in my point of view, and wouldn't be played by me in any case, but that's a different discussion entirely.
Anyhow, beside the personal issues I have with spending versus effort, there's also the effect buying items or money has on the ingame economy. I feel buying money increases the overall price of goods while also centralizing the income from the increased prices on the moneysellers, negatively impacting all players.
Firstly, money purchasing allows pooling of money. You don't buy small change per purchase - you get a (relative) big ammount for a moderate ammount of real-life money. This causes a disassociation of in-game money value, as the in-game money is no longer quantifiable by time and effort made by player, but rather by it's real-life monetary value. Let's say a player buys 100 gold in a game for 10 euro. That 100 gold equals two pieces of armor, which usually would take 20 real-life hours of gameplay to aquire. By buying the gold, you've now made those 100 gold be worth a half hour of work time rather than 20, meaning the time commitment and thus relative value of both armor and gold be, in effect, 1/40th of the value. Of course, buying gold doesn't immediately disconnect you from earlier efforts and knowledge about in-game economy, but the immediate effect would be that a player buying gold would suddenly sit on much larger ammounts of in-game money than he'd have earlier. Going from little to much with no time to get used to the new relative value of what you've aquired, means that your own spending sense would be harmed - since the relative value of the money had dropped, your willingness to spend it would also increase, making you buy more and for more unfavorable prices than before, simply because of the increased money suddenly available to you.
This would, further, increase the price of items. This would hurt everyone, but more than anything, it would hurt those NOT buying gold. The new prices of the market would rise to fit the unwise spending of the buyers and their inflated incomes, while the non-buyers would still be stuck with their old incomes, unable to buy at the rising rates.
"But", you might say, "if all prices rise, isn't that good for everyone selling? Including those not buying gold?" Sure, an excellent point. The problem lies in that the market of sellers would be cornered by those with the money to buy up en-masse and monopolize certain goods - in effect, those buying gold or those accumulating to sell gold, not the legitimately-playing, non-buying players. So while the legitimate player might occationally sell an item or two with a relative profit increase from the non-goldbuying times, all auction-related expenses have also increased proportional costs, meaning any player buying more than selling (which is usually the norm) would still lose money.
There's also the question of how those selling in-game money gets the money. There's four main methods - farming, auctioning, scamming and "hacking". Farming is either manually or automatically farming high-value targets and selling drops to get in-game money, which is then sold on to other players. Auctioning is cornering parts of the auction market, inflating prices and getting high profits through increased sell prices versus their buy prices. Scamming includes any way players or bots attempts to make player voluntarily give their money for less-valuable objects or services in-game. "Hacking" includes keylogging or other methods, as described earlier in this thread.
All of these methods are destructive to the playerbase as a whole. Farmers contest farm spots for actual players, making aquiring gear and / or money outside of the (money-seller-controlled) auction system hard. Cornering parts of the market increases prices for buyers. Scammers generally prey on stupidity, so people can blame themselves for this one. Still, it sows distrust and discontent, which is in general negative. And finally, "hacking" potentially ruins all the efforts of multiple players through emptying their characters of any valuable goods.
In effect, buying gold cheapens the game experience for all players. There's of course also the aspect of what the game providers has to do to combat illegal transactions such as these, which often negatively affects its legitimate, non-buying userbase, but that discussion's also for another thread.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
MMORPGs are evolving all the time i feel. From the begining of Runescape/WoW to now i would love to see a little figure of how much has been spent on the two $$ wise, i bet its huge!
However the only problem i have with buying gold/items is that it is never legit, why doesnt Blizzard or whoever makes Runescape these days not endource it so people who do it dont get hacked or banned etc, im sure blizzard for a start turns a blind eye against the buyers of items/gold due to fact they would rather they are paying the monthly fee a month than not. But there just needs to be legit ways to do things.
|
WoW is the only MMORPG I've played so I can only comment on that. I don't see why would someone buy gold in WoW since making gold is so easy. Personally, I've never bought items/gold for real money.
Some months ago I sold to an IRL friend of mine 200.000 gold for 50 euros. He initially offered me 50 euros for 100.000 gold but I just "gave" him 100.000 more since it's so easy to re-make this amount of gold.
|
If I ever need to pay a significant amount of money just to play a fair game I will switch to other games.
|
I don't know what RMAH is or whatever but I don't think there is anything wrong with gold buying (even though Ive never done it). A lot of times you need to buy gear or items to improve your stats that are ridiculously expensive. In order to be able to buy this stuff you need to spend a lot of time trading or getting items, which are both pretty much grinding. Not everyone has time to grind and shouldn't be forced to play 40 hours a week just to be able to play competitively imo, so gold buying is fine.
|
On January 10 2012 01:17 Tuskon wrote:
QFT. Unless you've got RL money on the line it shouldn't matter and with MMO's you only get to that point when you're basically in the top .5% or better. I don't see it being a problem at all in D3 since PvP more than likely isn't going to be competitive at all(there will be a niche group as always, but even Blizz said they're not gonna support it all that much).
The only thing the RMAH is going to do for D3 is give the more hardcore players a chance to make a bit of money off the more casual players. This will more than likely help with all the recent problems MMO's have been having with casual players complaining about difficult/time consuming content, since they can just buy the end game gear and get there quicker(doesn't mean there won't still be people that are gonna complain)
In the end i think the RMAH will become flooded with gold/items and over-inflation will happen quickly (maybe not in the first month or 2 but it'll happen). The over-inflation will turn people towards the Gold AH and with Gold being sold for super cheap on the RMAH the prices there will be stupidly high for the people who play legit and don't want to buy gold or get good drops to sell.
Overall it won't effect me in the least, even if i play more casually I'm not gonna spend money on a game past the initial cost, added DLC or subscription fee. It their money, let them spend it on useless digital objects that more than likely will have no effect on other aspects of their life.
Item buying and Gold buying was common in D2 as well, so Blizz is just regulating it now, which is actually good! The people who want to buy items won't get screwed and scammed now!
I think as long as it doesn't apply things that are essential to gameplay that you can't obtain through gameplay, micro-transactions like this are fine. Plus, my brother will be addicted to this game. I'm going to buy him an SoJ for his birthday, haha.
|
On January 08 2012 21:20 Lonyo wrote:
It's going to happen no matter what. Better to make it "official" so that there's less chance of getting screwed over.
Aside from banning all forms of trading totally, pretty much, you're always going to have the problem.
Less chance of people who previously broke TOA to get screwed over by people who broke the same TOA while trying to get an advantage over players who actually put effort into the game.
RMAH is a disgrace, why play the game when you can get the same items for real money? How do I as a player benefit from this auction house? people will buy their way to wins.
This isn't a case of all or nothing, I'd rather have real world item traders hunted for what they are doing instead of creating a feature that helps them sell their wares.
|
On January 10 2012 01:27 plated.rawr wrote:
I'm against it for a handful of reasons.
Firstly, it cheapens my own (and other legit players') efforts.
How does letting you turn that effort into real money cheapen it?
Buying gear (or money) from thirdparty sources skips this stage, making a joke out of the efforts of everyone playing the game legitimately.
But the 'thirdparty' is also a player. Someone always has to grind for the items.
That said, if the game provider would offer a pay-for-service to aquire the said gear or money through real-life money transactions, then I'd say the payment system be a legitimate way of aquiring gear while not breaking the game. Since it'd be provided by the game makers, it would also be a deliberately added feature of the game. This is, by the way, a common menthod of doing "free to play" games.
Now I'm confused - what you're describing seems to be, well, the RMAH: you pay others for the 'service' of having played and got the loot.
Of course, any game designed to allow significant game advantages through players spending real-life money compared to non-spending (legal) players is terrible from a base gameplay perspective in my point of view, and wouldn't be played by me in any case, but that's a different discussion entirely.
And a different situation entirely. The RMAH depends absolutely on non-spending (legal) players to generate the loot. All that's happening is that those players can then choose to monetise that effort.
Firstly, money purchasing allows pooling of money. You don't buy small change per purchase - you get a (relative) big ammount for a moderate ammount of real-life money. This causes a disassociation of in-game money value, as the in-game money is no longer quantifiable by time and effort made by player, but rather by it's real-life monetary value. Let's say a player buys 100 gold in a game for 10 euro.
I don't see anything on the Blizzard site about buying gold. There's a RMAH and a GMAH; I don't see where buying gold even fits into that.
That 100 gold equals two pieces of armor, which usually would take 20 real-life hours of gameplay to aquire. By buying the gold, you've now made those 100 gold be worth a half hour of work time rather than 20, meaning the time commitment and thus relative value of both armor and gold be, in effect, 1/40th of the value.
I see where you're going, but you're over-simplifying.
First of all, you're assuming the free market would stabilise at a point that strongly supports your argument.
Secondly, you presume the item in question is the only value derived from both the half-hour of work and the twenty hours of gameplay. The key words here are 'work', 'game' and 'play' 
Thirdly, you're assuming that 20 hours of gameplay is somehow deserving of special recognition. But if the price of a 20 hour item is that low, the item must be relatively common and thus putting in twenty hours to get it must also be relatively common - and thus unremarkable. Your status symbol is nothing of the sort. Now, if you're holding something worth 500 euros, that's a big deal - and it's a big deal to anyone, in game or out.
I guess my point is: if you're unhappy with the monetary value attached to the time you spend playing, maybe you need to re-evaluate a few things - such as how much you're treating the game as a job rather than a recreational, inherently enjoyable pastime.
One thing I would support is the engraving of auctioned items to reflect the fact they were purchased rather than looted, so that players who have put in the in-game effort are distinct from those who have not.
|
Norway28558 Posts
im really opposed to the games that allow you to buy items for real money that you can't get without purchasing them. (like gunbound etc)
but I don't have any problems with people buying items or characters from people who have made those items or characters. I mean take wow for example, say you're 26 years old and you're working, but you wanna play arena. you need a level 80? char but you can't spend the 500 hours it takes to get there, however you have no problems forking over whatever it costs to some chinese guy. I understand that it might take some of the "novelty" or whatever of having found some super awesome gear when you notice that lots of other guys have purchased even better gear, but I think that's just something you gotta deal with. be happy you have enough time to grind if that's what you did, I guess.
|
On January 10 2012 09:51 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 01:27 plated.rawr wrote:
I'm against it for a handful of reasons.
Firstly, it cheapens my own (and other legit players') efforts. How does letting you turn that effort into real money cheapen it? Show nested quote +Buying gear (or money) from thirdparty sources skips this stage, making a joke out of the efforts of everyone playing the game legitimately. But the 'thirdparty' is also a player. Someone always has to grind for the items. Show nested quote +That said, if the game provider would offer a pay-for-service to aquire the said gear or money through real-life money transactions, then I'd say the payment system be a legitimate way of aquiring gear while not breaking the game. Since it'd be provided by the game makers, it would also be a deliberately added feature of the game. This is, by the way, a common menthod of doing "free to play" games. Now I'm confused - what you're describing seems to be, well, the RMAH: you pay others for the 'service' of having played and got the loot. Show nested quote +Of course, any game designed to allow significant game advantages through players spending real-life money compared to non-spending (legal) players is terrible from a base gameplay perspective in my point of view, and wouldn't be played by me in any case, but that's a different discussion entirely. And a different situation entirely. The RMAH depends absolutely on non-spending (legal) players to generate the loot. All that's happening is that those players can then choose to monetise that effort. Show nested quote +Firstly, money purchasing allows pooling of money. You don't buy small change per purchase - you get a (relative) big ammount for a moderate ammount of real-life money. This causes a disassociation of in-game money value, as the in-game money is no longer quantifiable by time and effort made by player, but rather by it's real-life monetary value. Let's say a player buys 100 gold in a game for 10 euro. I don't see anything on the Blizzard site about buying gold. There's a RMAH and a GMAH; I don't see where buying gold even fits into that. Show nested quote +That 100 gold equals two pieces of armor, which usually would take 20 real-life hours of gameplay to aquire. By buying the gold, you've now made those 100 gold be worth a half hour of work time rather than 20, meaning the time commitment and thus relative value of both armor and gold be, in effect, 1/40th of the value. I see where you're going, but you're over-simplifying. First of all, you're assuming the free market would stabilise at a point that strongly supports your argument. Secondly, you presume the item in question is the only value derived from both the half-hour of work and the twenty hours of gameplay. The key words here are 'work', 'game' and 'play' Thirdly, you're assuming that 20 hours of gameplay is somehow deserving of special recognition. But if the price of a 20 hour item is that low, the item must be relatively common and thus putting in twenty hours to get it must also be relatively common - and thus unremarkable. Your status symbol is nothing of the sort. Now, if you're holding something worth 500 euros, that's a big deal - and it's a big deal to anyone, in game or out. I guess my point is: if you're unhappy with the monetary value attached to the time you spend playing, maybe you need to re-evaluate a few things - such as how much you're treating the game as a job rather than a recreational, inherently enjoyable pastime. One thing I would support is the engraving of auctioned items to reflect the fact they were purchased rather than looted, so that players who have put in the in-game effort are distinct from those who have not.
I'm discussing previous MMORPGs and illegal third-party sellers. The RMAH in D3 will be a design descision (and obviously business descision) by Blizzard, and thus a part of the game. It doesn't count in my grievances.
|
The only time I have a big problem with buying stuff is when it gives you an advantage that other players who are not spending money can not get. An example of something that is OK is league of legends, you can either play games and build up IP to get new champions or you can buy them with real money.
|
On January 10 2012 09:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
but I don't have any problems with people buying items or characters from people who have made those items or characters. I mean take wow for example, say you're 26 years old and you're working, but you wanna play arena. you need a level 80? char but you can't spend the 500 hours it takes to get there, however you have no problems forking over whatever it costs to some chinese guy. I understand that it might take some of the "novelty" or whatever of having found some super awesome gear when you notice that lots of other guys have purchased even better gear, but I think that's just something you gotta deal with. be happy you have enough time to grind if that's what you did, I guess.
In your example, I would argue that if the person is unable to make his own arena-worthy character then he doesn't deserve to have an arena-worthy character, and certainly shouldn't be able to buy one.
Then the argument may shift to the assertion that it takes too long or too much grinding to make a character that is able to effectively compete in arenas. If that is the case, the solution should be to make that easier, rather than allowing players to buy characters, items or gold for real money. The latter benefits rich people, and I can think of no justifiable reason why a game should single out rich people for particular benefits, while the former is fair and equal for all players.
In fact, I prefer GW2's system whereby in PvP all players are put into the same and equal gear, so that gear is not a factor in PvP.
|
In single player games they can sell all the items they want. I don't care.
In Multi player games I would prefer that only cosmetic items be sold.
I have spend money on in-game characters in order to personalize them.
As long as the items that are being sold are cosmetic only, I have no problem with it.
Like DJWheat, Blizzard I'm still waiting for that Zergling-Cape. 
|
Don't particularly care for it, but if the game is designed around allowing it from the get go it's not always too terrible. At least then you know what you're getting into when you play the game.
|
Item, no. Gold, I don't mind at all. If people want to ease the game a bit, then why shouldn't they. (NOTE: This I only approve at the time where there are no imba items to buy with gold and such. If there are, the game goes way too casual and the difficulty doesn't exists atleast for items.)
|
I don't feel like having real life money should affect anything in a multiplayer game (outside from paying the subscription of course).
It just isn't fair. In a multiplayer game stuff should only be attainable by effort.
|
On January 10 2012 18:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 09:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
but I don't have any problems with people buying items or characters from people who have made those items or characters. I mean take wow for example, say you're 26 years old and you're working, but you wanna play arena. you need a level 80? char but you can't spend the 500 hours it takes to get there, however you have no problems forking over whatever it costs to some chinese guy. I understand that it might take some of the "novelty" or whatever of having found some super awesome gear when you notice that lots of other guys have purchased even better gear, but I think that's just something you gotta deal with. be happy you have enough time to grind if that's what you did, I guess. In your example, I would argue that if the person is unable to make his own arena-worthy character then he doesn't deserve to have an arena-worthy character, and certainly shouldn't be able to buy one. Then the argument may shift to the assertion that it takes too long or too much grinding to make a character that is able to effectively compete in arenas. If that is the case, the solution should be to make that easier, rather than allowing players to buy characters, items or gold for real money. The latter benefits rich people, and I can think of no justifiable reason why a game should single out rich people for particular benefits, while the former is fair and equal for all players.
Welcome to capitalism? I mean I'm serious, trading money for time and vice versa is completely standard in almost all aspects of life.
It makes sense it would transfer into gaming as well.
People are always going to do this. If you're rich enough you won't care about its legality. It makes sense for game makers to legalize it, remove the scamming aspect, take a 5% profit from it, and destroy all the gold selling sites by making their service better.
|
I don't mind, although I woudn't do it myself.
As long as we all agree that a game turns insta-casual when you're able to buy items, it's fine. Having the best gear may also not get you that uber-respect you're looking for when you do attain stuff yourself, so that's something you definitely lose when you open up to this as a developer. Maybe a 'mark' that shows you've never bought something?
|
I'm against it simply because I would never spend money on in-game items. However, as was the case for D2, it's going to happen regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
