SoE new move (or not so new)

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by Agraza

That Second Life crap was/is hilarious. My sociology professor went off on it in a positive light. She did have his shit together though, with numbers, names, places, etc. I had to distract myself because if I paid attention I'd have probably laughed in her face. Honestly, her premise wasn't of money to be made, but that she thought it was anything more than cybersex was entertaining.

That shit is ridiculous, but mad props to whomever these gigantic brand names are forking their cash over to for exposure in the "virtual world".

Its all nothing but a bunch of intellectual masturbation. If I were in your class, I probably would have put together a great argument and made her look stupid. For some reason, I have found that most profs love to be challenged with well-formed arguments. Its like you get an automatic A for pounding them into the dirt. 95% of the time they admire you for it.

[Nerion]

If this is in AoC I am going to be really pissed...

[Horse]

Originally Posted by Miele

I think the day people will no longer accept NBG loot even among friends because "it's money lolz" is the day MMOs will die and some new shit will take their place.

Not true at all. This is where this system is actually GOOD... in reinforcing the groups where you will NBG an item because in the long run that will make you more money than if you piss off someone by greeding something they need. If your core group is a bunch of cutthroats, yes, you'll get your throat cut. That's a fine premise to base a cooperative MMO around.

Where the system sucks is that once the game companies themselves have a hand in or are dipping into the profits of gold/character selling, you fuckin' a betcha there will be money and time sink increases. The tinfoil hat brigade already claims collusion between the companies. Greased palms and looking the other way and whatnot. I'd say its such a simple concept that I'd really be surprised if it wasn't happening already at some level.

The companies get a slice of the pie and none of the responsibility. I don't think there'd be a way to police "herro i rever you 1-70 $700 ok?" but who knows. China's already being blocked from the NA servers, and I've heard whispers of the same coming from both sides as they get ready to gear up for some legalized selling of ePimping.

[Horse]

Originally Posted by Agraza

That Second Life crap was/is hilarious. My sociology professor went off on it in a positive light. She did have her shit together though, with numbers, names, places, etc. I had to distract myself because if I paid attention I'd have probably laughed in her face. Honestly, her premise wasn't of money to be made, but that she thought it was anything more than cybersex was entertaining.

That shit is ridiculous, but mad props to whomever these gigantic brand names are forking their cash over to for exposure in the "virtual world".

Clearly you are on top of the game, being in a sociology class. Fuck what various CEOs and people rolling in profits due to Second Life know.

[Venjenz]

Originally Posted by Lyrical

I just manage my time better. I don't see any difference between spending money on a virtual game or spending money on golf. Don't some golfers spend $200-300 a month on golf? I have spent maybe $500 over ten years of playing MMO's. I can see why some people would want to do it.

Bad analogy.

The money spent on golf is to let you play the game. Actual playing of the game is how you earn your reward. In the MMO world, the equivalent is the cost of the PC and the standard subscription fee. You spend that money to have the opportunity to play the game.

The rang rang market analogy of golf would be spending $500 to instantly shave 4 strokes from your handicap, or paying $1,000 to twink a magic driver that instantly let's you hit the ball 400 yards and perfectly straight no matter how bad of a swing you have. The twink putter that automatically sinks 30 footers every time. There's the proper analogy.

Golf Digest had a poll a few months back that asked if you could spend $50k and instantly have a 0 handicap, would you do it. IIRC, like 70% of the respondents said no. Buying your way to a better game defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place.

MMO players who actually play the game and never even consider buying the E-Z mode from the gold farmers have a golfer's mentality. I do both. The MMO is how I deal with winter and my clubs sitting in the garage. Both hobbies require a grind if you want to get the rewards. The bigger the reward, the harder the grind, and the sweeter the feeling when you pull off the grand achievement.

The virtual property market is retarded. With that said, if it becomes okie doke under the EULA, I'll start farming sellable items tomorrow and hoarding them on alts. I won't buy that stuff, but I have no qualms about taking advantage of the laziness and stupidity of others.

[Laerazi]

I don't really understand the mentality of those that buy virtual items... even though I don't have much time to play WoW, I still like the feeling of earning everything on my character. I don't like having free hand-outs or people leveling my character or my skills, because I feel it cheapens what I've been creating (my character).

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by Venjenz

Bad analogy.

The money spent on golf is to let you play the game. Actual playing of the game is how you earn your reward. In the MMO world, the equivalent is the cost of the PC and the standard subscription fee. You spend that money to have the opportunity to play the game.

As far as I'm concerned, its all the same. It just comes out of my entertainment budget. Split hairs all you want. My dad probably spends $500 a month on misc. golf stuff. In the past ten years, I spent probably $20 a month on my MMO hobby ($15 for the monthly sub and $5 a month on average in virtual currency). I think I can find more expensive hobbies.

[Agraza]

Originally Posted by Horse

Clearly you are on top of the game, being in a sociology class. Fuck what various CEOs and people rolling in profits due to Second Life know.

I guess you missed it where these locales they create in Second Life are abandoned. Coke, among many others, have created little parks in the world that no one visits. Look into it yourself.

edit - The only ones making money from Second Life are the ones selling the space and the ones building the locations for the companies attempting to advertise in that space. Investors are not showing any effect from the advertisement within Second Life.

[Northerner]

One hell of a lot of golfers (myself and some friends included) sure do go out and spend thousands of dollars on clubs and gear that shaves a few strokes off our scores. Yup, that money would probably be better spent on lessons but hell man, a shiny new driver with a sweet spot the size of a dinner plate is the more common route.

[Bongk]

A better analogy would be paying someone to play the round of golf for you in a tournament and you just turn in the score card at the end to claim your prize.

You are paying someone to play wow (to make gold) for you so that you can just collect the prizes (things bought with the gold).

Even worse is the people paying power levelers...

[Suineg]

I saw a ton of SOE people yesterday at a local theater in San Diego with little handbooks. I guess they were learning about all this at the same time.

[Maxxius]

Originally Posted by Venjenz

. . . The twink putter that automatically sinks 30 footers every time. . . .

God I want one of those ;p

[Miele]

Originally Posted by Kodylan

If you read the press release you quoted to start the thread, the Funcom CEO says it will be used in their upcoming casual MMO. Just because these companies are partnering with Live Gamer, it doesn't mean you'll see this service in every single MMO they offer.

My question was genuine, I didn't really remember what Funcom was doing, let alone doing more than a MMO.

To put it down bluntly, I don't care if these games exist, as we say around these parts, a "chicken is born every day, lucky is the one who finds it", which means that there is always someone you can depart from his money.

I play for fun and fun is also that little sense of enjoyment I get when I find an upgrade or a loot I always wanted drops for me or when I can afford a mount, etc.
If half of these achievements are purchasable (sans no-drop) only because someone can afford it, while it doesn't directly affect me and my gameplay, I still think it cheapens the whole experience. I know it's something that is already happening, but since it's not an officially accepted practice, it's not widespread.
Let's assume I can live with this as probably can a lot of other people, but if you have a choice between two games, one endorsing this practice and one not, which do you pick?

As it happened before LU13 in EQ2, many are already saying that if this goes to live servers, they will quit, I don't know how many will for real, but I remember quite an exodus after Station Exchange was implemented (possibly LU13 had to do with it as well, don't quote me on that).

The playerbase of EQ2 likes the game, but most of them are heavily against SoE various policies or have an axe to grind for some other reason, a move like this I'm sure would alienate quite a bunch of them. A bunch of MMOs is coming out in 2008, losing more customers could spell the end for EQ2, well the end for serious development about it, and put it in manteinance mode, just like MxO and VG.

I repeat it, I find ironic that instead of attracting more customers with quality games (or properly fixing existing ones), they prefer to get every penny from their existing playerbase, pissing it off in the process.
LoN was the first step, I refused to spend a single penny on it, my gf bought 3 booster packs and imo wasted 10 bucks on them.