open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Diablo 3 MT Model instead of or alongside the NeX?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Ava n'Daara
Posted - 2011.09.04 12:02:00 - [1]
 

With all the rage directed toward the NeX for anything resembling 'gold ammo', have you considered Blizzard's direction with the Diablo 3 Real-World Currency Auctions?

Seems to me that this model fits perfectly with EVE given that EVE already has a cash<->isk relationship with PLEX and players demand that items introduced be 100% player generated.

The idea is pretty straight forward.. players sell their crafted items, dropped loot, mining yield, isk, or what have you in an in-game eCommerce auction house with the option to put money into or make withdrawals from their eCommerce account. CCP takes a flat rate cut for creating an auction (a few given per week for free) and a flat rate cut on successful sale.

1337 players/corps can perhaps make some money or those who have little time can get top-tier items without unbalancing the player crafted aspect of the game. My only concern would be effect of bots driving down the real-world cost of items and thereby affecting PLEX costs but you're focused on crippling the bot activity in EVE anyway, right?

Ida Nolol
Posted - 2011.09.04 13:10:00 - [2]
 

On the one hand, I think its an effective solution for combating RTM and by extension botting, and that's what I thought when I first heard blizzard going it.

On the other though, I think it steps far, far closer to pay2win then plex does, and I think encouraging CCP with any form of revenue stream other then subs is dangerous until we straighten their priorities on the cash shop.

One for, two against, on balance for the moment I'm against it.

Ava n'Daara
Posted - 2011.09.04 13:52:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Ava n''Daara on 04/09/2011 13:52:19
I think pay2win is really only bad if the '2win' part comes from magically created items. Such items break the market and general gameplay mechanics that players work so hard for.

But with this method, someone has to do the work to create the items in the usual manner. You're effectively paying someone to do the grinding for you (without sharing accounts) so that you can do the fun stuff on a limited schedule. But someone is doing the grinding to create these items. So again, it comes down to making this someone not a bot of any significance. Said another way, you're paying someone else to play for you to win (or conversely, you're playing for someone else to pay you so they can win).

I think you'd find that this would get a great deal of use, largely in place of contracts (though they'd still be necessary for in-game stuff), by pretty much every type of player in the game.

Ida Nolol
Posted - 2011.09.04 15:12:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Ida Nolol on 04/09/2011 15:13:06

Originally by: Ava n'Daara

I think pay2win is really only bad if the '2win' part comes from magically created items.


You are wrong. It kills games. People play games exactly because they are not based in the real world. People enjoy Eve because they can do stuff here that they can't do in the real world, and because their situation in the real world has almost no impact on their situation in eve.

Pay2Win means people who are IRL rich win every time in the game. Its not just that that isn't fun (which it isn't), it contravenes the very point of playing the game. If I want people to walk all over me because they have more money then I do, I'll go enter my Holden (Opal/overhaul/Chevrolet depending on where you are) Astra in a local car rally so I can watch all the people with Ferraris zoom past me.

I play video games so that (unlike almost every other competitive activity) money doesn't make or break my success. Take that away, and all you have left is an activity that is bad for my health in several different ways and makes me significantly less attractive to women.

Herping yourDerp
Posted - 2011.09.04 17:50:00 - [5]
 

no, blizzard is getting a lot of crap for D3 already for it.

MsValentineWiggin
Posted - 2011.09.04 20:08:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Ida Nolol

You are wrong. It kills games.


It may completely destroy your desire to play those games and cause you to think they are horrible games. A lot of people agree with you.

However, everything I read about the gaming industry is that it is at least arguably successful and certainly is FOTM. I certainly do not think it is an accident that WoT and DUST use MT not subscriptions. I agree with a podcaster that said there will always be subscription games because a certain segment of the population hate micro transactions. But sub is a shrinking segment.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/08/11/age-of-conan-unchained-conquers-300-000-new-players-doubles-re/

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/02/17/champions-online-gains-profits-and-players-as-a-free-to-play/

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/

Ida Nolol
Posted - 2011.09.04 22:59:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: MsValentineWiggin

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/08/11/age-of-conan-unchained-conquers-300-000-new-players-doubles-re/

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/02/17/champions-online-gains-profits-and-players-as-a-free-to-play/

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/


These examples are all F2P, not P2W.


Free to play simply means that anyone can play for free, and the cash shop items allow you to either circumvent grind, buy cosmetic items, or buy convenience items. So they might offer powerful weapons that take many weeks of scrimping and saving in game currency of some form to acquire (such as wow honor points), pretty clothing to make you look pimp and inventory expansions so you can go for longer without having to head back to town.

I don't have a problem with this model. It relies on mass numbers to work. You quadruple the size of your playerbase overnight, and rely on a quarter of them spending at least as much on the cash shop as they did on subscriptions.

The truth of this model is that it will get you less money if you are going well at the subscription model. But, if you are experiencing a serious decline is playerbase, it can save you form destruction. MMO's die when they lost enough players to make the world feel unpopulated. F2P solves that.

Pay2Win is a different concept. It doesn't necessarily mean that the game you play doesn't have a subscription. Some pay2win games have both a subscription AND a cash shop. That's bad enough. But the cash shop sells items you cannot get elsewhere that are horribly overpowered. Thus, in such games, you have to spend in the cash shop in order to be competitive. But even if you choose not to be competitive, the pay2win model may still charge you for playing.


Alexander Renoir
Posted - 2011.09.05 07:39:00 - [8]
 

There is absolute NO space for RMT in a game with subscription. In no way! All ideas for "pay to win" in EVE should be disposed of once and for all!
Not the player generated p2w thing is the problem. RMT in EVE itself is the problem. I hate the nex store. But as long as there will be vanity items only available in this store; It is OK. I will not use them, even when I would be the richest man in EVE. I am not so pavonine that I cant live with the standard POD-pilot jacket and pair of trousers, which are for free.

Trash the nex store and set all items in the market like all other things else. There are much other examlples for NPC sell orders in EVE. A nex store and especially the AURUM (Aurum [lat.] = gold = WoW gold? Twisted Evil) is NOT necessary.

Ava n'Daara
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:30:00 - [9]
 

tl;dr: Hi.

Half-dozen posts, but too many false assumptions and self-contradictions to detail them without a wall of text so I'll leave you to them. I really don't think you quite understand this model, though, so I'll try one more time.

1) We already have pay2win. Cash > PLEX > Isk > in-game items.
- Were I a damned fool with enough money, I could buy millions of PLEX right now and own whatever I want - I win.
2) Folks accept the current PLEX pay2win because in-game items require someone in game to create/farm the items.
- No amount of cash or PLEX can create in-game items.
3) The D3 Cash AH proposed above only contains in-game items created or farmed by someone in game.
- No amount of cash spent in the AH can create in-game items.
- Notice how this is the same as 1 and 2, except with existing contract-like convenience (just a different currency)
- The AH can be used or ignored just like contracts. Of course Blizzard is getting flak for it.. it's new!

Now, this is even simpler. Time = Money, right - pretty tough to argue against that sensibly, I think. You choose or are forced to spend time to acquire things created/farmed in game. Someone else chooses to spend money to acquire things created/farmed in game. Presumably you enjoy getting things as you play in some manner and this someone else enjoys playing in some manner with what they get. If you are in fact jealous of this someone who can acquire with money instead of time, your jealousy doesn't change the fact that no in-game items have been created by cash. Your way of playing is no better or worse and no more right or wrong than this someone else's way of playing.

Finally, as a player who doesn't want to pay cash to buy items you decide to play as usual and get something that you notice is worth a lot on the Cash AH. You have the opportunity to sell it there and you can use what you earned for your time investment to pay for another item in the Cash AH or you can withdraw it and buy a coffee to help keep you awake through your grind.

How is this any different from current item trading in the contract system except that you have the option to take money from someone for your time investment. This only adds to the Cash > PLEX > Isk > in-game item we have now by offering an in-game item OR Isk > Cash option, which I can't see as objectionable, right?

And yet you got a wall of text anyway. Oops? ;)

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:35:00 - [10]
 

Well, there is this small thing.

PLEX->ISK OR 30 days of game time->things
1.000.000 PLEXes is by no means guaranteed to be 400.000.000.000.000 ISK. In fact, if one person would put so many PLEXes in the game, I think the prices would drop like a stone cause there would be much more PLEXes compared to demand.

Just something to think about.

Covert Kitty
Amarr
SRS Industries
SRS.
Posted - 2011.09.06 04:44:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Covert Kitty on 06/09/2011 04:46:12
Ditch the NeX MT, add the ability to sell PLEX or isk for RL money with CCP taking a transaction tax (basically the D3 approach). I have been advocating that for some time, even before D3 announced their intentions. No need to add do it on an item level with the way eve is setup. CCP doesn't need to worry about buying existing plex stock, just provide a taxed interface for securely matching buyers with sellers.

It's better than Aurum and more Eve like, provides some benefit to the community, and does not displace gameplay.


 

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