EPTHowever, given the reaction to the legalization of gold buying in WoW through the Guardian Cub, and also the reaction to the RMAH in Diablo 3, it seems that player attitudes have now shifted.
So please take a moment to respond to this poll.
Do you agree with item/gold buying?
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
However, given the reaction to the legalization of gold buying in WoW through the Guardian Cub, and also the reaction to the RMAH in Diablo 3, it seems that player attitudes have now shifted. So please take a moment to respond to this poll. | ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
1) Do you agree with people actually spending real money to purchase in game items? 2) Do you agree with games letting you spend real money on items that give you an advantage? If you're asking the first question, then who cares? People can (and will) spend money on whatever they want. If you're asking the second question, then I personally don't agree with that, I think it's a terrible business model and not only harms the players that can't/won't spend real money to regain equal footing with those who paid for an advantage, but it also harms the developers of the game (in the long run), because less people will end up playing their game. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 08 2012 20:01 jtype wrote: I'm not sure quite what question you are asking here. I mean, there are two main issues on this subject: 1) Do you agree with people actually spending real money to purchase in game items? 2) Do you agree with games letting you spend real money on items that give you an advantage? If you're asking the first question, then who cares? People can (and will) spend money on whatever they want. If you're asking the second question, then I personally don't agree with that, I think it's a terrible business model and not only harms the players that can't/won't spend real money to regain equal footing with those who paid for an advantage, but it also harms the developers of the game (in the long run), because less people will end up playing their game. I meant in-game items that may give you an advantage, such as those sold over the RMAH in Diablo 3. Or gold, which can obviously used to buy both cosmetic items and useful items. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11870 Posts
As for selling things that give a bonus outside of the normal and is account locked. That I disagree with, things like 10% more damage potion for x time that can't be traded. If you can trade it, then there isn't really any problem as long as the items aren't needed, just make things easier so a poor player don't need it and hardly notice its lack. These items should not work in PvP, only PvE. Cosmetics are fine to sell as long as they aren't stupid. Map packs / DLC is another part that I dislike. I won't get these. | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
A large part of PvP is who has better gear anyway. Even if you take out the RMAH, there will always be people who have spent more time farming/MFing/botting/duping than you. IMO, just stop getting your panties in a bunch over a game that isn't even meant to be played competitively. If you want to complain, please direct your attention to problems that actually matter like SC2/Dota/LoL balance issues or w/e. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 08 2012 20:54 writer22816 wrote: I would never do that but I don't see anything wrong with it. RPGs and MMORPGs are not competitive games, therefore if a person wants to spend money to get gear, fine. A large part of PvP is who has better gear anyway. Even if you take out the RMAH, there will always be people who have spent more time farming/MFing/botting/duping than you. IMO, just stop getting your panties in a bunch over a game that isn't even meant to be played competitively. If you want to complain, please direct your attention to problems that actually matter like SC2/Dota/LoL balance issues or w/e. WoW is a very competitive game. If you don't have good gear and raid achievements, you're not going to get into a serious progression raiding guild. The highest caliber of guilds are sponsored and race for world first kills. PvP through the arena system is an eSport, with tournaments around the world (although it seems to have diminished a little since TBC). | ||
|
Hakker
United States1360 Posts
On January 08 2012 21:08 paralleluniverse wrote: WoW is a very competitive game. If you don't have good gear and raid achievements, you're not going to get into a serious progression raiding guild. The highest caliber of guilds are sponsored and race for world first kills. PvP through the arena system is an eSport, with tournaments around the world (although it seems to have diminished a little since TBC). Are we talking about WoW or RMT? Because the vast majority of MMO's arent WoW and aren't meant to be competitive. Hell, even wow isn't competitive anymore since it was dropped from basically every major tournament organization except Blizzcon. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
Aside from banning all forms of trading totally, pretty much, you're always going to have the problem. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
Allowing people to spend money to shortcut this is effectively making the game shorter for the people who do so and so handicaps the people who play the game as it was intended. Why not extend the system and start selling gameplay aids? The could start off as and evolve into. Stat boosts -> special abilities -> increased hit chance -> seeing people through walls -> hitting r to win. The idea clearly needs bounds on how far it can go. Personally i think the idea cheapens games and if you intend to play a game competitively you therefor need to spend more to get there faster which is just stupid. People should be competitive at games by having more knowledge, better skills, having worked to get items. Sure trade in game gold for ingame items but allowing peopel to *buy* things in game with real money is a travesty. Moreover, it is the very definition of imbalance. May as well just use hacks it will damage the game just as much as everyone is forced into a spending real money arms race. Besides half the fun of selling stuff in the real world is the chance of getting conned / conning someone. As for reducing the grind/farm argument ... that is nonsense it will just appear somewhere else in another form. At the end of the day games have to slow down progress or else there would be a game to play. | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
On January 08 2012 21:17 Hakker wrote: Are we talking about WoW or RMT? Because the vast majority of MMO's arent WoW and aren't meant to be competitive. Hell, even wow isn't competitive anymore since it was dropped from basically every major tournament organization except Blizzcon. Lol, "highest calibur of guilds are sponsored". Maybe the top 5-10, my friend is in the 20th or so ranked and raids 6-8 hours 5 days a week. They dont get shit :-) goes to show how pointless it is. | ||
|
Warri
Germany3208 Posts
On January 08 2012 20:14 Numy wrote: Well in WoW if noone bought gold would people still be getting their accounts hacked and cleaned out? there is no such thing as "hacked". Everyone who got his acc cleaned out deserved it because its his own fault and hes a fucking idiot. As for item selling: Microtransactions, aka buying items from the company that runs the game, which are better than what you can acquire by playing the game is a nogo. But the playerbase being allowed to trade their own items for real money is ok, i don't see how people can complain that people who don't play the game as much as your 14yo nerd are not allowed to have as good equipment as him. | ||
|
fLaUpYY
Germany33 Posts
On January 08 2012 23:04 Warri wrote: there is no such thing as "hacked". Everyone who got his acc cleaned out deserved it because its his own fault and hes a fucking idiot. As for item selling: Microtransactions, aka buying items from the company that runs the game, which are better than what you can acquire by playing the game is a nogo. But the playerbase being allowed to trade their own items for real money is ok, i don't see how people can complain that people who don't play the game as much as your 14yo nerd are not allowed to have as good equipment as him. ofc. there is something like keylogging, and there will always be people who use them and get their email-addresses to hack. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 08 2012 21:17 Hakker wrote: Are we talking about WoW or RMT? Because the vast majority of MMO's arent WoW and aren't meant to be competitive. Hell, even wow isn't competitive anymore since it was dropped from basically every major tournament organization except Blizzcon. I'm talking about buying gold and items for real money in general. I mentioned WoW and Diablo 3 because they are the most familiar examples where it has been legalized. And it's not just in arenas where WoW is a competitive game, it's also competitive in rated BGs and PvE, and regardless of what eSports tournaments there are, you can experience the competitiveness in WoW players simply by playing the game. | ||
|
Logros
Netherlands9913 Posts
| ||
|
arterian
Canada1157 Posts
 Also, for those saying the gold and stuff comes from hacked accounts; I've been hacked twice and both times I got everything back and then some. If anything it was a minor annoyance. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
Unless others buying gold has a negative impact on other players, I don't see a problem. I'm well aware that keylogging/hacking happens partially to facilitate gold sales, but that shouldn't be the reason it should be stopped; rather that just means better enforcement is required. Arguments about "earning" them and stuff is all nonsense. Some people literally don't have enough time, and if they're willing to spend real money to get somewhere, so be it. People who drive to a destination vs fly to it don't suddenly ask airlines to be dismantled because they can't afford tickets (note: I'm well aware this is not a perfect analogy, nor do I intend it to be). As long as the seller isn't capable of selling everything upon its immediate release then all is good. I was the leader of a guild and we sold achievements/gear/mounts to people who were willing to pay in-game gold to help fund the guildbank. It might be different, but not so different that a lot of the arguments can't still be applied to the situation. | ||
|
ishboh
United States954 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Tuskon
United States86 Posts
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. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
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 House51490 Posts
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. | ||
|
Linwelin
Ireland7554 Posts
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. | ||
|
laguu
Finland278 Posts
| ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
| ||
|
eauxlune
43 Posts
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. | ||
|
Valashu
Netherlands561 Posts
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. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
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. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28678 Posts
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. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
On January 10 2012 09:51 Umpteen wrote: How does letting you turn that effort into real money cheapen it? But the 'thirdparty' is also a player. Someone always has to grind for the items. 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. 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. 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. 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. | ||
|
MuATaran
Canada231 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
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. | ||
|
Rustug
1488 Posts
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.  | ||
|
Vortok
United States830 Posts
| ||
|
PeZuY
935 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
It just isn't fair. In a multiplayer game stuff should only be attainable by effort. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On January 10 2012 18:27 paralleluniverse wrote: 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. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3980 Posts
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? | ||
|
Bairemuth
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 10 2012 19:17 dcemuser wrote: 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'm well aware of capitalism in real life, and I have no problems with it for the most part. But a video game is not real life. The solution to it being too hard to make a viable arena character in a game is to make it easier, not to allow character, item, or gold buying. The latter is a real life solution to a game problem, and is unfair compared to the former, which is better. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
In a situation like that I could never support gold buying, because in doing so you support the people who are ruining the game for everyone else. If the gold sellers have no effect on the game, then I don't really care. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On January 10 2012 20:03 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm well aware of capitalism in real life, and I have no problems with it for the most part. But a video game is not real life. The solution to it being too hard to make a viable arena character in a game is to make it easier, not to allow character, item, or gold buying. The latter is a real life solution to a game problem, and is unfair compared to the former, which is better. The difficulty of the task is irrelevant. Video games are part of real life. No matter how much you could roleplay it differently, they're bits of code stored on a server somewhere and should not be bound by different rules and principles because of this. I fail to see the distinction between the two. Increasing the power of your character in a video game is not different from buying rare Magic the Gathering cards on the internet and using them to beat your friends who don't have the money to do it. There are a hundred other applicable analogies as well. You mention it is "unfair". Unfair to who? Why is it unfair? I think there are quite a few other perspectives you are ignoring. The main reason we think it is a bad thing is because we were raised on video games that were aloof from the influence of capitalism. At the time, there did not exist means for developers to monetize games past the initial purchase fee. Over time, the internet and other advances (persistent connections, MMORPG popularity, etc.) have allowed for this. We are culturally biased against capitalism in gaming and believe that gaming should be held separate on an elite pedestal where problems can only be solved through skill and time because that is how things were in the past. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 10 2012 23:34 dcemuser wrote: The difficulty of the task is irrelevant. Video games are part of real life. No matter how much you could roleplay it differently, they're bits of code stored on a server somewhere and should not be bound by different rules and principles because of this. I fail to see the distinction between the two. Increasing the power of your character in a video game is not different from buying rare Magic the Gathering cards on the internet and using them to beat your friends who don't have the money to do it. There are a hundred other applicable analogies as well. You mention it is "unfair". Unfair to who? Why is it unfair? I think there are quite a few other perspectives you are ignoring. The main reason we think it is a bad thing is because we were raised on video games that were aloof from the influence of capitalism. At the time, there did not exist means for developers to monetize games past the initial purchase fee. Over time, the internet and other advances (persistent connections, MMORPG popularity, etc.) have allowed for this. We are culturally biased against capitalism in gaming and believe that gaming should be held separate on an elite pedestal where problems can only be solved through skill and time because that is how things were in the past. This would be a more suitable analogy. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=301815¤tpage=8 | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
| ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
1. If i was still in school and could play 5 hours a day I would have voted "I don't agree" simply because time is the only currency I have as a kid and i trade my time in order to get better items and feel that my character is badass. I get to participate in "better" clans/ harder raids etc. 2. Now that I have a full time job and a soon to be married I can play 2-3 hours a week. So time as a currency is no-no. So either I suck it up and have a "bad" character, one that can't get the best items or participate in the hardest boss modes/raids, or Blizzard realizes the gamers grow older and wants to continue be "at the top" but only this time they don't have the time for it but instead $$. <3 Blizzard They always cater to my needs. Always perfect timing. I quit WoW a year ago due to not having the time to be at the top and then BAM Blizzard in august announces RMAH for Diablo 3. Now you better believe I'm hoping that for their next-gen mmo they will have a RMAH so I can buy power and have an awesome character. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 12 2012 21:21 papaz wrote: I voted "I agree". It's quite simple actually. 1. If i was still in school and could play 5 hours a day I would have voted "I don't agree" simply because time is the only currency I have as a kid and i trade my time in order to get better items and feel that my character is badass. I get to participate in "better" clans/ harder raids etc. 2. Now that I have a full time job and a soon to be married I can play 2-3 hours a week. So time as a currency is no-no. So either I suck it up and have a "bad" character, one that can't get the best items or participate in the hardest boss modes/raids, or Blizzard realizes the gamers grow older and wants to continue be "at the top" but only this time they don't have the time for it but instead $$. <3 Blizzard They always cater to my needs. Always perfect timing. I quit WoW a year ago due to not having the time to be at the top and then BAM Blizzard in august announces RMAH for Diablo 3. Now you better believe I'm hoping that for their next-gen mmo they will have a RMAH so I can buy power and have an awesome character. It's all about you. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Zechs
United Kingdom321 Posts
| ||
|
Tarias
Netherlands480 Posts
| ||
| ||
