open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked "Why Microtransactions In Games Are Amoral," on Slashdot
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Nak hak
Posted - 2011.09.03 20:08:00 - [1]
 


Jon Taggart
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.09.03 22:20:00 - [2]
 


kerradeph
Gallente
CATO.nss
Posted - 2011.09.04 04:47:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Jon Taggart
This video is better.


I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to steal that link and start spamming it everywhere someone complains about MT.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.09.04 04:49:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 04:55:56
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 04:50:03
Concept is being discussed as if it were the only format that could be used amorally. Call of Duty putting out the same game over and over, then charging you for map packs is, morally speaking, no better.


Perfect morals and a perfect world are not realistic goals. Accountability however is a bit more plausible. MT makes accountability immediate... people can KEEP PLAYING the game, but can STOP PAYING at the same time.

Accountability is also helped because now buying and selling those things is not against an EULA. The game and player base don't blame players for having too great of an advantage when they buy things now, they blame the game devs who gave it to them for a few pieces of silver... when really it's the devs who design the game in either scenario but only get held accountable in the latter.


Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.09.04 10:42:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: kerradeph
Originally by: Jon Taggart
This video is better.


I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to steal that link and start spamming it everywhere someone complains about MT.


Regardless of how you look at it, it does not change the fact that MT is used beacuse it can get you more money then a subscription based system, or a fixed one time payment. Just saying.

But Extra Credits makes a good point on why the systems fail many places, because you end up with a pay to win situation. If, as said, one could earn Aurum in game, people migt not be as opposed to NEX as it is now.

Also pricing levels, CCP ****ed up there.

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.09.04 15:18:00 - [6]
 

$70 dollars for a monocle? It's a disgrace.

It's far too low!

For the added kudos and limitless war decs owning one provides it should be $300 at least. I would willingly sell my house and it's entire contents to help CCP buy a bigger fish tank.



Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.09.04 15:35:00 - [7]
 

Wave O the future gents... Better start living/dealing with it. Doubt it will go anywhere any time soon.

I suppose an argument could be made that it's a fad, but even if that were true some elements from it will be sticking around.

Thuranni
Eldjotnar
Posted - 2011.09.04 16:20:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs

If, as said, one could earn Aurum in game, people migt not be as opposed to NEX as it is now.


You can use your ISK to buy PLEX which you convert into Aurum. You can earn Aurum without ever paying extra for them.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only