Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Secret World: A Cash Shop Makes Sense

11012141516

Comments

  • XzenXzen Member UncommonPosts: 2,607

    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Originally posted by Short-Straw

    Over 280 posts now on this. Obviously a contraversial/polarizing idea Funcom is trying. I can't think of too many business that successfully started with "It's contraversial and polarizing!" Granted, the posters on this site are more likely to be informed but word of mouth is still the best advertising. This does not bode well for Funcom.

    Anecdotal only: Was talking to a coworker earlier this morning about SW:ToR and I mentioned TSW and their business model. He told me that it's pretty unlikely he'll even bother now.

    Someone's never watched FOX news I take it.

    People love drama, however in this case, some will not play, but most will eventually come around to the realization that P2P with a cash shop is here to stay.

    What Funcom is doing is joining the mainstream, not setting the trend.

    Well after mentioning this to my guild we all decided to pass on starting up a TSW chapter. I will never play a game that has both a sub fee and a cash shop. This double dipping crap has got to go.

  • TalthanysTalthanys Member Posts: 458

    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    Now I won't even sit back and say I took this approach lightly. I refused to buy any game from Funcom that had this payment model. And it definately helped that both mmos they released were lackluster at best: STO and CO. But as time moved on I started to think. Why am I complaining about a price increase that is completely optional? I mean it was nothing like the SWG increase that was pretty much forced to pay or don't play.

    Cryptic made STO and CO.

    image

  • Ramonski7Ramonski7 Member UncommonPosts: 2,662

    Originally posted by Talthanys

    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    Now I won't even sit back and say I took this approach lightly. I refused to buy any game from Funcom that had this payment model. And it definately helped that both mmos they released were lackluster at best: STO and CO. But as time moved on I started to think. Why am I complaining about a price increase that is completely optional? I mean it was nothing like the SWG increase that was pretty much forced to pay or don't play.

    Cryptic made STO and CO.

    Yeah I caught that after I posted, thanks for pointing it out anyway.

    image
    "Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."

  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,584

    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    The cost of a mmo subscription is way over due to be raised. For over 10 years now the price for one has averaged about 12 bucks per month. This is very low compared to the leaps and bounds we have witnessed with technology cost and advancements. But instead of a developer/publisher taking a chance to raise the cost of a sub, we had Funcom usher in the sub + model.

     

    Now I won't even sit back and say I took this approach lightly. I refused to buy any game from Funcom that had this payment model. And it definately helped that both mmos they released were lackluster at best: STO and CO. But as time moved on I started to think. Why am I complaining about a price increase that is completely optional? I mean it was nothing like the SWG increase that was pretty much forced to pay or don't play.

     

    Also I believe that this model kind of makes transitioning from sub to F2P that much easier if a developer is left with that option. I mean it doesn't change much for the consumers who are already exposed to the cash shop, nor the developers that have an established model for transactions in place. Dunno maybe I'm alone in my thinking, but the way I see it was either 1 of two things could have panned out:

     


    1. Raise the price of subs to a level that struggling gamers may not be ready for.

    2. Introduce a revenue stream that is proven to work but not very popular.

     

    I persoanlly think the 2's have it.

    you also forget the things also get cheaper, they don't use top computers to make a server, they use the best based on cost and performance, also in case they need more processing power they just put another comp in the cluster, you also should notice some MMO have a  R$10 -11 cost so saying 15 is too little for then is a lie, remember you pay 15 but have another 5k peeps paying its that they make money number of peeps not sole single peep

    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • biplexbiplex Member Posts: 268

    It does not change my desire to play this game at all.

    After Age of Conan scam, i wont have any desire to buy anything that comes out of Failcom no matter if they have cash shop or not.

    image
    http://www.teraonline.info.pl Polski Poradnik Gry Tera Online

  • KhalathwyrKhalathwyr Member UncommonPosts: 3,133

    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    The cost of a mmo subscription is way over due to be raised. For over 10 years now the price for one has averaged about 12 bucks per month. This is very low compared to the leaps and bounds we have witnessed with technology cost and advancements. But instead of a developer/publisher taking a chance to raise the cost of a sub, we had Cryptic usher in the sub + model.

     

    Now I won't even sit back and say I took this approach lightly. I refused to buy any game from Cryptic that had this payment model. And it definately helped that both mmos they released were lackluster at best: STO and CO. But as time moved on I started to think. Why am I complaining about a price increase that is completely optional? I mean it was nothing like the SWG increase that was pretty much forced to pay or don't play.

     

    Also I believe that this model kind of makes transitioning from sub to F2P that much easier if a developer is left with that option. I mean it doesn't change much for the consumers who are already exposed to the cash shop, nor the developers that have an established model for transactions in place. Dunno maybe I'm alone in my thinking, but the way I see it was either 1 of two things could have panned out:

     


    1. Raise the price of subs to a level that struggling gamers may not be ready for.

    2. Introduce a revenue stream that is proven to work but not very popular.

     

    I persoanlly think the 2's have it.

     

    *Replaced Funcom with Cryptic since they started the sub+ model first.

    I could agree that the cost of a monthly sub could be raised. THat said I do not believe it should be raised more than 2 or 3 dollars to $18 US/month. The reason I say that it while cost may have gone up a little, the quality of MMO being put out doesn't warrant that much of an increase. Now, games that come out fairly polished, such as Rift, should be able to charge an extra buck or two up to $20.

    But yeah, these fairly recently made games (post 2004) that started subscription but have changed model to include some variation of F2P...if they had been of high quality players would have stayed there with subs. Obviously they weren't as they lost enough subscription players to warrant them trying other models.

    "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."

    Chavez y Chavez

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Originally posted by Short-Straw
    Over 280 posts now on this. Obviously a contraversial/polarizing idea Funcom is trying. I can't think of too many business that successfully started with "It's contraversial and polarizing!" Granted, the posters on this site are more likely to be informed but word of mouth is still the best advertising. This does not bode well for Funcom.
    Anecdotal only: Was talking to a coworker earlier this morning about SW:ToR and I mentioned TSW and their business model. He told me that it's pretty unlikely he'll even bother now.
    Someone's never watched FOX news I take it.
    People love drama, however in this case, some will not play, but most will eventually come around to the realization that P2P with a cash shop is here to stay.
    What Funcom is doing is joining the mainstream, not setting the trend.



    I think there are other things that will be a much bigger factor in TSW's success than the existence of a cash shop. How well does the game play? Is there a lot of lag? How do the graphics look? Do the quests pull you in? If they don't pull you in, do they at least stay out of your way? Etc.

    Funcom can certainly mess things up, but I don't think a cash shop full of muffins or whatever other fluff items they have is going to do it.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • XzenXzen Member UncommonPosts: 2,607

    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    The cost of a mmo subscription is way over due to be raised. For over 10 years now the price for one has averaged about 12 bucks per month. This is very low compared to the leaps and bounds we have witnessed with technology cost and advancements. But instead of a developer/publisher taking a chance to raise the cost of a sub, we had Cryptic usher in the sub + model.

     

    Now I won't even sit back and say I took this approach lightly. I refused to buy any game from Cryptic that had this payment model. And it definately helped that both mmos they released were lackluster at best: STO and CO. But as time moved on I started to think. Why am I complaining about a price increase that is completely optional? I mean it was nothing like the SWG increase that was pretty much forced to pay or don't play.

     

    Also I believe that this model kind of makes transitioning from sub to F2P that much easier if a developer is left with that option. I mean it doesn't change much for the consumers who are already exposed to the cash shop, nor the developers that have an established model for transactions in place. Dunno maybe I'm alone in my thinking, but the way I see it was either 1 of two things could have panned out:

     


    1. Raise the price of subs to a level that struggling gamers may not be ready for.

    2. Introduce a revenue stream that is proven to work but not very popular.

     

    I persoanlly think the 2's have it.

     

    *Replaced Funcom with Cryptic since they started the sub+ model first.

    Yeah the cost of the technology and maintenance has gotten cheaper and the technology is also more reliable. So the costs have gotten cheaper.

  • Squal'ZellSqual'Zell Member Posts: 1,803

    1 subscription and no item shop

    2 free with item shop

    those are the only 2 choices i will accept

    i played sub games with no item shop (eve (pre-incarna) SWG (pre-cu) ultima online (pre-tram))

    i payed 15$/month which is a bit on the expensive side looking at the costs charts but well within reasonable standards

    i played free games AND have spent money (DDO, Ragnarok, Rappelz)

     ive actually ended up paying a little more, 20$/month which i thought it was required to keep playing and taking advantage of most things the game has to offer, but still within reasonable ammounts

    now put both together youwill pay 15$/month for a sub... and another 20$ for fluff, xp, pots etc. which i am sure they will make it REQUIRED to some degree at end game... 35$ is pushing the unreasonable giving the fact that we already paid 60$ for the box and will be paying another 60 in 6 months. so lets do the math for 1 year, (aproximation)

    SUB + CASH

    60+60 = 120

    35 x 12 = 420

    total 540$

    vs

    sub only

    60+60 =120$

    15x12= 180$

    total 300

    vs

    free with cash

    20x12= 240

    total 240

     

    analysis

    240-300$/year is a reasonable ammount to pay either free with cash and sub no cash and devs have 1 a good ammount of money to put in, but not enough money comming in to dismiss the player base

    540$ thats... well thats just not right... devs and or publishers etc... will be swimming in money and will afford to lose some players so they wont be FORCED to WORK HARD to keep their player base, this resulting in a decrease in game quality. 

     

    also people say pay with your wallets. in EvE online, since they have released cash shop, you know that monocle for 70$ or wtv... only 300 items have been sold. (got this number from a friend who still plays, uunverified, anyone can prove?)

    also this is a fact, there are many main alliances and corps that kick people out if they use the shop. using the shop in eve is spitting on the game and players are letting the devs know... 

    i guess this is what makes real gamers who play to game and general gamers who play for entertainment who are satisfied with cheat codes and repetitive content while being handheld the whole way.

    /end frustration rant.

    image
    image

  • SulaaSulaa Member UncommonPosts: 1,329

    Originally posted by Elidien

    Would I rather see a $25 sub fee or a cash shop that gives me the choice to spend money in it or not? The answer is simple to me.

    For me as well answer is simple. I choose 20-25$ / month subscription.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Sulaa

    Originally posted by Elidien

    Would I rather see a $25 sub fee or a cash shop that gives me the choice to spend money in it or not? The answer is simple to me.
    For me as well answer is simple. I choose 20-25$ / month subscription.



    I would choose the $15 a month plus a cash shop that I may never use rather than the $20 to $25 a month sub.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • SulaaSulaa Member UncommonPosts: 1,329

    Originally posted by lizardbones

     




    Originally posted by Sulaa





    Originally posted by Elidien



    Would I rather see a $25 sub fee or a cash shop that gives me the choice to spend money in it or not? The answer is simple to me.






    For me as well answer is simple. I choose 20-25$ / month subscription.







    I would choose the $15 a month plus a cash shop that I may never use rather than the $20 to $25 a month sub.

     

    I understand that perfectly. We're just diffrent in this matter.

  • hardiconhardicon Member UncommonPosts: 335

    here is the thing, funcom is not charging you any more money with the cash shop, it is optional.  you dont have to spend money there, you can if you want but you dont have to.  so the entire argument of they are nickel and diming me to death is totally wrong.   they only nickel and dime you if you choose to spend money in the cash shop.

    with that being said I am not a fan of the cash shop in any game, simply because every game I have ever played that had a cash shop turned out to put pay 2 win items in the shop which makes it so you have to spend money in the shop to compete.  when that happens I quit playing that game.  If that doesnt happen and the cash shop remains fluff and vanity items I could care less, I wont buy that stuff and if you have an aversion to cash shops you shouldnt either.  If someone wants to spend their money on it, who cares, it does make more money for the game company which most players of that game should be happy with because more money generally means a better game experience.

    my only fear of the cash shop is eventually they all seem to put pay 2 win items in the game, I wont pay therefore I cant compete, so I wont play.  Now I wont be playing this game but that is not because of the cash shop solely, it is one of the factors the other being a sub fee.  Ill wait for no sub fee guild wars 2 to come out and see how that game is but cash shops dont have to be bad, they just normally are.

  • Ramonski7Ramonski7 Member UncommonPosts: 2,662

    I understand where all the guys that are saying the cost of technology is cheaper. Hell the cost of building cars, houses and everything since 2000 is cheaper. It still doesn't mean we can get any of those things for a cheaper price in 2011 that we did in 2000. And you know why? Because the cost of making (parts/labor) those things has nothing to do with the cost of energy needed to run/manufacture them.

     

    The guys who keeps the servers up is not getting paid a year 2000 salary or hourly wage. He's getting a helluva lot more. That energy pumping to run those servers has not stagnated for 11 years, they cost more to juice up. My whole point is we can talk about how cheap technology "gets" once it's out for a while (iphones, ipads, cell phones, etc.) but initially it's not as cheap as many of you make it seem. And futhermore there is a lot of behind the sceens cost that a lot of you are not taking in account.

    image
    "Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."

  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,584

    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    I understand where all the guys that are saying the cost of technology is cheaper. Hell the cost of building cars, houses and everything since 2000 is cheaper. It still doesn't mean we can get any of those things for a cheaper price in 2011 that we did in 2000. And you know why? Because the cost of making (parts/labor) those things has nothing to do with the cost of energy needed to run/manufacture them.

     

    The guys who keeps the servers up is not getting paid a year 2000 salary or hourly wage. He's getting a helluva lot more. That energy pumping to run those servers has not stagnated for 11 years, they cost more to juice up. My whole point is we can talk about how cheap technology "gets" once it's out for a while (iphones, ipads, cell phones, etc.) but initially it's not as cheap as many of you make it seem. And futhermore there is a lot of behind the sceens cost that a lot of you are not taking in account.

    guys? pls if they have more then one in the time when a server is down its because its one of the programmers, its normal for lower lvl programmers do more then just sit in a comp and write codes, also its a hell of mistake and saying you waht you do for live its not ahve the same value

    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • CeridithCeridith Member UncommonPosts: 2,980

    Originally posted by hardicon

    here is the thing, funcom is not charging you any more money with the cash shop, it is optional.  you dont have to spend money there, you can if you want but you dont have to.  so the entire argument of they are nickel and diming me to death is totally wrong.   they only nickel and dime you if you choose to spend money in the cash shop.

    with that being said I am not a fan of the cash shop in any game, simply because every game I have ever played that had a cash shop turned out to put pay 2 win items in the shop which makes it so you have to spend money in the shop to compete.  when that happens I quit playing that game.  If that doesnt happen and the cash shop remains fluff and vanity items I could care less, I wont buy that stuff and if you have an aversion to cash shops you shouldnt either.  If someone wants to spend their money on it, who cares, it does make more money for the game company which most players of that game should be happy with because more money generally means a better game experience.

    my only fear of the cash shop is eventually they all seem to put pay 2 win items in the game, I wont pay therefore I cant compete, so I wont play.  Now I wont be playing this game but that is not because of the cash shop solely, it is one of the factors the other being a sub fee.  Ill wait for no sub fee guild wars 2 to come out and see how that game is but cash shops dont have to be bad, they just normally are.

    if I pay a subscription to an MMO, I expect to get the full gameplay experience.

    A cash shop means I need to spend money to purchase missing portions of gameplay experience, whether it be content or 'convenience' items.

    A cash shop in a subscription MMO means I'm paying a monthly fee to play an incomplete game, and have to spend extra money to get the rest of the game.

  • XzenXzen Member UncommonPosts: 2,607

    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    I understand where all the guys that are saying the cost of technology is cheaper. Hell the cost of building cars, houses and everything since 2000 is cheaper. It still doesn't mean we can get any of those things for a cheaper price in 2011 that we did in 2000. And you know why? Because the cost of making (parts/labor) those things has nothing to do with the cost of energy needed to run/manufacture them.

     

    The guys who keeps the servers up is not getting paid a year 2000 salary or hourly wage. He's getting a helluva lot more. That energy pumping to run those servers has not stagnated for 11 years, they cost more to juice up. My whole point is we can talk about how cheap technology "gets" once it's out for a while (iphones, ipads, cell phones, etc.) but initially it's not as cheap as many of you make it seem. And futhermore there is a lot of behind the sceens cost that a lot of you are not taking in account.

    I am the guy that keeps the servers up. We get paid less than the generation of workers we replaced. The newer servers use less energy. The servers don't need to be worked on or replaced nearly as much. Yet the price we pay to play has stayed the same. Which I'm fine with that. But I have a problem with them trying to double dip.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • SavageSageSavageSage Member UncommonPosts: 66

    As long as it does not give somebody an in game advantage, like better weapons, more skills, etc., I don't care what some vain little ponce, with more money than brains, decides to spend their (or usualy their parental unit's) cash on.  Let them break the bank on that new little poser outfit to go dancing in, IDFC, I will be over here, decked out in the best uber armor and weaponry I can craft (though I may be chewing on that lit vanity stogie I paid 5 bucks for, to give me a little more badass feel :P)

    More power to the morons, I say.  More cash they spend, faster upgrades and addons can be made for the game that I will already pay to play.

  • CeridithCeridith Member UncommonPosts: 2,980

    Originally posted by Elidien

    Originally posted by Ceridith


    Originally posted by hardicon

    here is the thing, funcom is not charging you any more money with the cash shop, it is optional.  you dont have to spend money there, you can if you want but you dont have to.  so the entire argument of they are nickel and diming me to death is totally wrong.   they only nickel and dime you if you choose to spend money in the cash shop.

    with that being said I am not a fan of the cash shop in any game, simply because every game I have ever played that had a cash shop turned out to put pay 2 win items in the shop which makes it so you have to spend money in the shop to compete.  when that happens I quit playing that game.  If that doesnt happen and the cash shop remains fluff and vanity items I could care less, I wont buy that stuff and if you have an aversion to cash shops you shouldnt either.  If someone wants to spend their money on it, who cares, it does make more money for the game company which most players of that game should be happy with because more money generally means a better game experience.

    my only fear of the cash shop is eventually they all seem to put pay 2 win items in the game, I wont pay therefore I cant compete, so I wont play.  Now I wont be playing this game but that is not because of the cash shop solely, it is one of the factors the other being a sub fee.  Ill wait for no sub fee guild wars 2 to come out and see how that game is but cash shops dont have to be bad, they just normally are.

    if I pay a subscription to an MMO, I expect to get the full gameplay experience.

    A cash shop means I need to spend money to purchase missing portions of gameplay experience, whether it be content or 'convenience' items.

    A cash shop in a subscription MMO means I'm paying a monthly fee to play an incomplete game, and have to spend extra money to get the rest of the game.

    Then maybe games need to sub options:

    1. $15 a month + cash shop

    2. $25 a month and no cash shop so someone can get the "full experience"

    Point is, companies are going to get the revenue they seek one way or the other.

    For me, its simple. An additional $5-10 a month is not worth it to get something from a shop like a sparkly pony or the goldpants instead of the orange pants that I have.

    It depends on how extensive the cash shop is to determine if it's worth $5 more a month. If developers are really hurting for cash, I don't mind paying $5 more a month, so long as it's justifiable, and so long as I don't have to deal with additional potential charges ontop of that.

    As per the extra charge not being worth it for the "special person" sparkle pony and the like, well that's just something developers need to stop doing in the first place, because they're ripping players off  who are stupid enough to pay those prices, and denying paying customers content that should be available to all subscribers.

  • brutality123brutality123 Member Posts: 125

    Then wouldn't it be better for the consumer to have different tiers of subscription rates?

     

    Sub +Cash Shop..  The only reason the cash shop is there is it is the best way for the company to make fast money. Cheap items to fill out the shop and to pull in money. These are digital items they are selling beyond the intial outlay there is no cost to produce however many of them they want.

     

    EA have said themselves the most profitable items are the ones that give an advantage. It is a business  it is there to make money   are they that retarded that they wont put advantage items in there?  This cash shop is in NO way to our benefit.

     

    Just started doing some face book apps..  damn right I am going to have a cash shop there for the people with more money then sense might as well give it to me..  I honestly cannot believe what people are happy to pay for. Definately going to have some relours of items.. woot  easy money ..  one born every minute...  lol...

  • hardiconhardicon Member UncommonPosts: 335

    I can see why people feel they dont get the full game with the cash shop, but really if it is just for cosmetic items and stuff then why does it matter.  I think that is one area most gamers can compromise on, or should be able to anyway.  cosmetic items only I could care less, ill wear my butt ugly brown pants instead of paying for some nice looking ones. the problems with cash shop is they are generally set up and the game is set up in a way that kind of forces you to buy from them.

     

    imo blizzard did their cash shop right, i never actually needed to use it, nor did I ever even look at it except for one time when i was thinking of transferring a toon to another server.  I know blizzard isnt a full item cash shop, but it is pretty close but everything in there that I have ever heard about was purely cosmetic or fluff, I could care less about a my little pony. 

    So no I dont think a cash shop is too terrible if done right and left at fluff and vanity items, just leave the power items out of it, leave items that truly affect your playing experience out of it, personally even on free to play games power items need to be left out, but especially in sub games.  Lets face it guys, cash shops are here to stay, we can either get on the bus or get the f---- out of the mmo genre, but cash shops aint going anywhere, lets at least try to make companies implement cash shops that we like instead of pay 2 win shops and making the playing field uneven for the players that play the game instead of going shopping.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • whisperwyndwhisperwynd Member UncommonPosts: 1,668

    Wow, still going strong. lol

    If the % of STW players are of the same mind as most of you here then I'm sure CS should get the axe. We'll see how it goes though and I'll try it not because of Funcom, but because of the Lovecraft feel to it.

    If it sucks, it sucks. I won't be dissuaded by the company, their business model, or the 'type' of player that will play. I'll play because it interests me and that's that.

     Have fun!

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591

    Do the math people

    Do you think the gaming industry has a hard time making money? Christ look at all the MMO's being advertised on this site. Why do you think that is?

    Look at the single player games, where you pay box sales and that's all she wrote. You think they don't make money off of it?

    The video gaming industry is and has been growing by leaps and bounds... why?

    You pay $50-$60 for a box and then you pay $15 a month for a subscription. So in a year after you spent $180, your lucky if you get 2 or 3 dungeons in that time. Maybe a few  stupid Christmas or Haloween quests. For all that cash.

    Why do you think that there is so many MMO's out and many more in the works and soon to be released? Because it's hard to make money with them?

    I find it unbelievalble how gullible some people are.

    Cash shops are a way of making 6-figures on a 3 or 4-figure investment. They print money.

    And that's why you will see more and more of this shite.

    The poor devoloper's need to bring in more money so they can put food on the table... maybe if your a small indie.

    LOL scoff

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

Sign In or Register to comment.