Station Cash Button and RMT [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

ElnAckom

08-01-2010, 01:53 PM

This post is created at the suggestion of SOE staff, as other locations have been determined inappropriate for debating RMT itself, and as RMT is literally now "in testing," I find no other better location.<hr />Amnerys posted, "In this thread (UI), yes, you're welcome to say that you don't like the SC button. But to dig further into the issue of RMT overall, that needs to go somewhere else because it won't help Rothgar make changes to the UI, and he can't do anything about RMT." An understandable thing, so voila: a new location.Rothgar posted, "Everyone that playes this game and the people that make the game are never going to agree on priorities. For every feature we add, someone is going to argue that it was a waste of time and we should have done "X" instead of "Y"."Rothgar also posted, "We've mentioned several times that you're ok to post your dislike of the SC button. Thats certainly UI feedback. However, this isn't a thread for debating the topic."Then let's have a debate here. As Amnerys accurately points out that Rothgar can't do anything about RMT - Roth, we all realize we all answer to a higher power; nothing personal - I'd quite like SOE to send us someone who can, and have them answer to the playerbase, here and for all to see, exactly why RMT is a higher priority than so many of the other things that have been suggested as priorities over the past couple of years.<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=30&topic_id=483693&post_id=5377872" target="_blank">See post here for my take on the subject.</a>I'd like it explained to years-long veteran subscribers exactly why our subscription dollars were used to fund RMT. In February 2009, John Smedley stated in a VGN interview that "[w]e have gone out of our way to make sure we’re not doing virtual goods development in addition to everything else. As a good indication of performance, we’ve added another person to each relevant team that does nothing but handle the items."Clarification: Additional staff was hired, or internal staff was reallocated, to concentrate on rolling out RMT... not to fix bugs, not to balance mechanics, and not to build content.John stated further in that interview, "It’s just an ancillary revenue stream, a convenience for players, and I think people will gradually get used to it provided companies are careful with how they integrate it."May I humbly suggest that placing Station Cash on the top of the UI isn't being careful. It's indelicate at the very least. If developers like Rothgar are merely following marching orders in rolling out RMT in such an "in your face" way as I keep hearing it called, then I'd like whomever gave said orders to come here and speak directly to us on the subject.John said in that same interview, "I think a lot of people are wondering if StationCash signals that we’ll make EverQuest and EverQuest II free-to-play, and that's not correct." Mr. Smedley, with all due respect I don't think many of us believe you on that. EQX seems to indicate otherwise.The playerbase may not universally agree on a single core set of priorities. I understand, as a managerial figure having several hundred people to deal with and several thousand stakeholders they work with and answer to, how challenging it can be to mitigate the personal and the passionate. However that doesn't excuse or explain flatly ignoring the congealed cores that do become apparent upon thorough parsing of the many voices.Examination of the threads on this forum system alone would reveal countless citations of fixes and mods to existing major mechanics and balancing issues to improve gameplay, and a plethora of ingenious content ideas.Clearly the call for RMT did not come from the players. It came from somewhere "up the food chain." So let us have it above board and out and open from someone who can address the topic, lest the resentment fomenting down here on the ground come to a head.Can anyone at SOE blame us for being both afraid and angry at the Station Cash Button? It is a crystallized essence of RMT that conjurs fear and anger, and I think we deserve a better explanation than "it's not up for debate." If an executive at SOE has made the determination to say "we're doing this no matter what, and that means the things you want (fixes, mechanics, and content) are going to wait," he or she should have the fortitude to come out here and say it publicly.If the situation is different, rapid and vocal clarification might go a long way towards defusing this situation.I hate to be the lizard that throws down the gauntlet, but there's a lot of "this isn't the place for that" going around, and very little substantive addressing of the executive policy at the heart of this matter. It's not fair for the developers to continue to be placed in a position to defend decisions they didn't make (when that's the case).To quote John Schuck, "We await your answer, sir."

Dasein

08-01-2010, 02:03 PM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post is created at the suggestion of SOE staff, as other locations have been determined inappropriate for debating RMT itself, and as RMT is literally now "in testing," I find no other better location.<hr />Amnerys posted, "In this thread (UI), yes, you're welcome to say that you don't like the SC button. But to dig further into the issue of RMT overall, that needs to go somewhere else because it won't help Rothgar make changes to the UI, and he can't do anything about RMT." An understandable thing, so voila: a new location.Rothgar posted, "Everyone that playes this game and the people that make the game are never going to agree on priorities. For every feature we add, someone is going to argue that it was a waste of time and we should have done "X" instead of "Y"."Rothgar also posted, "We've mentioned several times that you're ok to post your dislike of the SC button. Thats certainly UI feedback. However, this isn't a thread for debating the topic."Then let's have a debate here. As Amnerys accurately points out that Rothgar can't do anything about RMT - Roth, we all realize we all answer to a higher power; nothing personal - I'd quite like SOE to send us someone who can, and have them answer to the playerbase, here and for all to see, exactly why RMT is a higher priority than so many of the other things that have been suggested as priorities over the past couple of years.<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=30&topic_id=483693&post_id=5377872" target="_blank">See post here for my take on the subject.</a>I'd like it explained to years-long veteran subscribers exactly why our subscription dollars were used to fund RMT. In February 2009, John Smedley stated in a VGN interview that "[w]e have gone out of our way to make sure we’re not doing virtual goods development in addition to everything else. As a good indication of performance, we’ve added another person to each relevant team that does nothing but handle the items."Clarification: Additional staff was hired, or internal staff was reallocated, to concentrate on rolling out RMT... not to fix bugs, not to balance mechanics, and not to build content.John stated further in that interview, "It’s just an ancillary revenue stream, a convenience for players, and I think people will gradually get used to it provided companies are careful with how they integrate it."May I humbly suggest that placing Station Cash on the top of the UI isn't being careful. It's indelicate at the very least. If developers like Rothgar are merely following marching orders in rolling out RMT in such an "in your face" way as I keep hearing it called, then I'd like whomever gave said orders to come here and speak directly to us on the subject.John said in that same interview, "I think a lot of people are wondering if StationCash signals that we’ll make EverQuest and EverQuest II free-to-play, and that's not correct." Mr. Smedley, with all due respect I don't think many of us believe you on that. EQX seems to indicate otherwise.The playerbase may not universally agree on a single core set of priorities. I understand, as a managerial figure having several hundred people to deal with and several thousand stakeholders they work with and answer to, how challenging it can be to mitigate the personal and the passionate. However that doesn't excuse or explain flatly ignoring the congealed cores that do become apparent upon thorough parsing of the many voices.Examination of the threads on this forum system alone would reveal countless citations of fixes and mods to existing major mechanics and balancing issues to improve gameplay, and a plethora of ingenious content ideas.Clearly the call for RMT did not come from the players. It came from somewhere "up the food chain." So let us have it above board and out and open from someone who can address the topic, lest the resentment fomenting down here on the ground come to a head.Can anyone at SOE blame us for being both afraid and angry at the Station Cash Button? It is a crystallized essence of RMT that conjurs fear and anger, and I think we deserve a better explanation than "it's not up for debate." If an executive at SOE has made the determination to say "we're doing this no matter what, and that means the things you want (fixes, mechanics, and content) are going to wait," he or she should have the fortitude to come out here and say it publicly.If the situation is different, rapid and vocal clarification might go a long way towards defusing this situation.I hate to be the lizard that throws down the gauntlet, but there's a lot of "this isn't the place for that" going around, and very little substantive addressing of the executive policy at the heart of this matter. It's not fair for the developers to continue to be placed in a position to defend decisions they didn't make (when that's the case).To quote John Schuck, "We await your answer, sir."</blockquote>I am not sure what you're getting at here. The SC store is not a new thing, it's just now being made more visible in the UI. The UI changes themselves are not introducing virtual item sales.

ElnAckom

08-01-2010, 02:17 PM

Please refer to the UI discussion thread in this forum for the details.

Dasein

08-01-2010, 02:21 PM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please refer to the UI discussion thread in this forum for the details.</blockquote>I've read that thread, yet you seem to be concerned with virtual item sales in general, not merely the change to the UI. However, Station Cash has been around a lot longer than the proposed UI changes, the UI changes just make it more visible.If you object to virtual item sales in EQ2, that battle is long since over.

TheSpin

08-01-2010, 02:30 PM

OK... first some information for those who might not be following the other threads. The UI updates in the next Game Update are including 3 things related to the marketplace that are causing some uproar. Firstly: The EXP bar is going to feature a marketplace button on it, in addition to some other new buttons and a new look.Secondly: Station cash will now be shown as currency on merchants alongwith our regular plat, gold, silver, copper.Third: Items from the marketplace will be shown on some vendors. For example horse merchants will include station cash horses in the list. When sorted by price, the station cash items should be listed as the 'most expensive'.Now to play devil's advocate. Not because I don't have my own concerns, but because someone has to be and I'll try to do it as objectively as possible.If SoE had any plans to force rmt or items with stats on the current servers, they would not have made the new servers for eq2x. Now whether the population on the live servers is damaged or helped by the addition of the extended servers is pure speculation. Players won't be able to use the live servers for a free trial without a referral from a live player, but most advertising is word of mouth anyway. Also some players are likely to move from extended servers to the live servers because if you don't like the perks added into the extended marketplace the live servers are the cheaper option.Some players probably will move from the live to the extended servers. It is also possible that over time the extended servers will become increasingly popular and the old servers will become less populated. If this happens, yes we will have to choose to participate in what seems to be the new era of gaming, or find a game that hasn't (yet) implemented this type of gameplay.The UI changes are necessary for a F2P environment. EQ2s only revenue on the extended servers will be via the marketplace, so it needs to be visible and easily accessed. The fact they are including them on the live servers as well is a little upsetting, but as someone who doesn't use the marketplace much at all, I don't think it will really impact anything that I do. (I have spent a total of $5 on the marketplace in the last 3 years for an appearance helm)If worst case scenario occurs and the live servers fade out and the extended servers become the primary servers...... Truth be told. Playing in a F2P environment is not all that bad. I don't think anything sold on the marketplace will make a signifigant difference in a raiding environment, successful players will still need to learn the script and the correct way to defeat an encounter. The main difference between RMT and oldschool gaming is that people can use cash as a substitute for time invested or in game coin to purchase good (but not the best) gear.I agree that the eq2 community was not quite ready for this move. However, I agree that this has been the works for a long time and the people who tell the EQ2 team what to do have decided to push this through and are not thinking of the current playerbase as anything more than statistics, which is very sad, but true. I feel the info given to the players has been a shady to say the least.I think the real EQ2 lovers who quit over this will likely come back to try velious and hopefully by then they've cooled off enough to stay, as long as the expansion is good.

Nevynmysti

08-01-2010, 02:30 PM

I have to agree with the first post. I recall time and again being told we would be able to IGNORE Rmt and enjoy our game still. [Removed for Content], have the reason I stopped playing Free To Play games and continued with Eq2 instead was that there wasn't any of that UGLY, CONSTANT, marketing all over my UI that I would have to look at all the time. I was okay when they added the Marketplace, especially with it being apart of the Eq2 button and I would know where to find it when I wanted to spend some. And I have used it... for the free stuff as well as the unfree stuff. Then it was thrown on the Welcome Screen and I got slightly upset. It was then more in my face... I was able to ignore it still however but just ignoring the whole screen by either closing it right away or turning it off in options.But now you want to BREAK the best UI ever by throwing RMT in out FACES! I can't stand this. What about those of us are RP's as the game is supposed to be a mmoRPG! Kinda hard to ignore the real world and get lost in the virtuall when all the RMT is all over areas it shouldn't be.I understand that business is about profit but why drive away your veteran dedicated player base that has kept your lights on for the last 6ish years by doing this when we hate it? As I have said in other threads this whole GU is for your Eq2 Extended needs. Take this new crappy stuff to that game. Don't mess with the best game out there as it already is. Especially since they said you are operating with Eq2 Extended as its own game. THat means it needs its own code! Don't change Our Subscriber Game code to fit your new horrible game! Keep the codes seperate as they should be!

Dasein

08-01-2010, 02:31 PM

After reading more of your posts, I think the biggest problem you have is accepting that SOE needs to make money, and needs to keep their products competative. You seem to think (or which, perhaps) that SOE could develop EQ2 in a manner removed from the realities of both the MMO makret and our larger eocnomic climate. This simply isn't possible. SOE needs to adapt, and in this case, that adaption means embracing F2P and microtransactions.Now, there is plenty of room to debate exactly how they go about doing this, but expecting SOE to ignore economic factors in some quest to keep EQ2 pure is unrealistic.

Dasein

08-01-2010, 02:40 PM

Another tihng to consider is that as players get more SC for things like veteran rewards or promotions, SC will become less about virtual item sales and more simply an alternate currency, albeit one people can buy in addition to obtaining through other channels.

ElnAckom

08-01-2010, 02:42 PM

Dasein, it's silly to think that I or anyone else fails to understand SOE is a company, and a company's first order of business is making money. That's just out of touch. My "biggest problem" is an organization that forgets the people that make it that money. I don't believe SOE needs to operate in opposition to basic market principles, but I think it can do it in a way that serves both the corporate bottom line and the playerbase concerns.It's not a matter of being removed form the economic climate; it's a matter of good business as opposed to bad business: you don't cut off your base to squeeze out additional profits. I'm asking SOE to be transparent and accountable. You, as a subscriber, should demand that from anyone you pay for a service, in my humble opinion.You're missing my point. It is precisely the debate you cite - the method of implementation, and the forces within them - that I want publicly discussed. That's not only realistic, it's a critical element of any responsible, well-managed rollout. I am unsatisfied that has happened.There's a difference between understanding and responding to the market, and ignoring the client base. To say that responsibility to the bottom line and responsibility to the customer are mutually exclusive is patently false.

Sedenten

08-01-2010, 02:45 PM

I have more of an issue with the marketplace items showing up at all on in-game vendors for live servers. That shows an advancement further down that "slippery slope" that John Smedley once claimed EQ2 would not take a plunge down. I don't mind if they put the SC in the default UI, as it can be edited out via custom UI's. Custom UI's cannot currently edit out the addition of marketplace items from the in-game merchant windows at all, however.I know from a business perspective moneymaking ventures are going to be pushed. I just always hoped that those ventures would not be so dramatically affecting in-game immersion.

Dasein

08-01-2010, 02:56 PM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Dasein, it's silly to think that I or anyone else fails to understand SOE is a company, and a company's first order of business is making money. That's just out of touch. My "biggest problem" is an organization that forgets the people that make it that money. I don't believe SOE needs to operate in opposition to basic market principles, but I think it can do it in a way that serves both the corporate bottom line and the playerbase concerns.It's not a matter of being removed form the economic climate; it's a matter of good business as opposed to bad business: you don't cut off your base to squeeze out additional profits. I'm asking SOE to be transparent and accountable. You, as a subscriber, should demand that from anyone you pay for a service, in my humble opinion.You're missing my point. It is precisely the debate you cite - the method of implementation, and the forces within them - that I want publicly discussed. That's not only realistic, it's a critical element of any responsible, well-managed rollout. I am unsatisfied that has happened.There's a difference between understanding and responding to the market, and ignoring the client base. To say that responsibility to the bottom line and responsibility to the customer are mutually exclusive is patently false.</blockquote>Let's say you work for SOE, and you are instructed that you need to improve revenue from Station Cash, and want players - both new and existing - to have ready access to SC items available for purchase. How should they go about doing this?The need to grow is non-negotiable. If you say you should just leave well enough alone, you'll be fired and replaced with someone who gets the job done. Thus, you need to find a way to make more people buy more stuff. Let's hear your ideas.

Dasein

08-01-2010, 02:58 PM

<cite>Koinoo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have more of an issue with the marketplace items showing up at all on in-game vendors for live servers. That shows an advancement further down that "slippery slope" that John Smedley once claimed EQ2 would not take a plunge down. I don't mind if they put the SC in the default UI, as it can be edited out via custom UI's. Custom UI's cannot currently edit out the addition of marketplace items from the in-game merchant windows at all, however.I know from a business perspective moneymaking ventures are going to be pushed. I just always hoped that those ventures would not be so dramatically affecting in-game immersion.</blockquote>SOE's business decisions will be dictated by what they think they need to do to remain competative. Letting themselves get hobbled by something Smedley said a couple of years ago is just foolish. The only thing this indicates is that SMedley shouldn't make any statements about what SOE may or may not do in the future.

ElnAckom

08-01-2010, 03:03 PM

I appreciate your desire to defend this policy and action as inevitable, Daesin, and that you do not fault the policy or how it is being implemented.Some of us respectfully disagree and believe that the SOE leadership owes more explanation than you do. We were directed to take that request elsewhere in the forums, and I have done exactly that.I hope that you will respect others' views that SOE should explain why RMT trumps other concerns. You clearly feel the answer is "because it makes us more money, and that's most important." I don't accept that profit and accountability to the playerbase are mutually exclusive, and it seems others share my view. To that end, this thread seeks said explanation.Edit: And as for being fired, when my boss tells me to get something done, I make sure every stakeholder is consulted. If my boss tells me to ignore the stakeholders, I explain why that's a bad idea, and I stand on the principles that got me my job. Good leaders don't want "yes men," and they aren't afraid of dissent. It breeds innovation and breeds customer loyalty.

Sedenten

08-01-2010, 03:05 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Koinoo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have more of an issue with the marketplace items showing up at all on in-game vendors for live servers. That shows an advancement further down that "slippery slope" that John Smedley once claimed EQ2 would not take a plunge down. I don't mind if they put the SC in the default UI, as it can be edited out via custom UI's. Custom UI's cannot currently edit out the addition of marketplace items from the in-game merchant windows at all, however.I know from a business perspective moneymaking ventures are going to be pushed. I just always hoped that those ventures would not be so dramatically affecting in-game immersion.</blockquote>SOE's business decisions will be dictated by what they think they need to do to remain competative. Letting themselves get hobbled by something Smedley said a couple of years ago is just foolish. The only thing this indicates is that SMedley shouldn't make any statements about what SOE may or may not do in the future.</blockquote>Keep in mind a lot of players refuse to be driven into a situation where RMT is the centerpiece. EQ2 has gotten closer and closer to that. The EQ2 Extended servers were separated due to a strong opinion against F2P being integrated with live servers. The reason they submitted to that strong opinion was likely due to fear of loss of revenue from driving players away. Integrating the marketplace into normal in-game vendors is nearly as bad as integrating the F2P with live servers, so I'm floored that such a bold change was made.Remaining competitive or not, they shouldn't advocate what is going to lose them playerbase. Or maybe they should, if the gain in new players who are more RMT-friendly ends up making more money. I don't know. Only time will tell if these changes will truly affect the playerbase populations, however. I guess we'll just need to wait and see. There's a reason a good bit of the players of EQ2 aren't playing those competitor's games. It might just have a lot to do with not wanting game immersion killed by tying so much of the RMT idea into the game.

Dasein

08-01-2010, 03:07 PM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I appreciate your desire to defend this policy and action as inevitable, Daesin, and that you do not fault the policy or how it is being implemented.Some of us respectfully disagree and believe that the SOE leadership owes more explanation than you do. We were directed to take that request elsewhere in the forums, and I have done exactly that.I hope that you will respect others' views that SOE should explain why RMT trumps other concerns. You clearly feel the answer is "because it makes us more money, and that's most important." I don't accept that, and it seems others share my view. To that end, this thread seeks said explanation.</blockquote>And what sort of an explanation do you really want? If Smedley said, in effect, SOE needs to make more money, and more Station Cash exposure allows us to do that (and without incurring too much cost, either), why would you not accept that? This is why I think you have trouble accepting that SOE is first and foremost a business.

ElnAckom

08-01-2010, 03:18 PM

This is going to be my last post in response to this back-and-forth, D, because it's diluting the point, but I'm just shocked that you aren't remotely interested in holding SOE accountable for what they do with your money.It's not a question of not accepting the explanation. I want to hear it. We haven't heard that from anyone at SOE, publicly. What is so bizzare about asking the people that made a decision to man up and say it out loud? I'm perfectly aware that the bottom line here is profit; that's the whole miserable point of the concerns we (the people that have the concerns) have raised: If you want to make more money, prioritize the game instead of nonsense like Station Cash, because the amount of money you make from SC and RMT is nothing compared to subscriptions. That's the meat and potatoes. And subscribers aren't going to keep playing a dying game.I, for one, believe EQ2 has more long-term profit potential than just "milk these people til they quit." If you accept that, good for you, and enjoy whatever game you play after EQ2 fails. I'd rather that not happen.To turn this around, I find your view of EQ2 cold and uninvested. EQ2 may be a profit-making machine for SOE, but if that's all it is to you, you wouldn't enjoy my guild or the people in it. I know very well that my money is just profit to SOE, but I don't believe everyone involved in the development and maintenance of Norrath thinks of nothing but dollar signs.A ten year solid title with high subscription rates makes more money than a six year title that fizzles out thanks to flash and nonsense that doesn't support the core of the game. You want to talk profit? That's your profit. If SOE can come out here and say that they're literally going to make more money through Station Cash than a solid long-term title, so be it.The bottom line here is that I think SOE owes it to us to outline it, no matter how obvious it may be to you. I'm the type of person that asks people to explain themselves when they make decisions. When my people say "I want to do X," I expect them to explain why, how, and what results might look like. I don't accept simple statements at face value, and I don't make assumptions that motivations are what they seem to be.If you think that makes me silly and that this is a waste of time, so be it. If you don't see value in it, so be it. I believe in public, transparent accountability to the stakeholders. That's all I'm asking for.

Dasein

08-01-2010, 03:34 PM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is going to be my last post in response to this back-and-forth, D, because it's diluting the point, but I'm just shocked that you aren't remotely interested in holding SOE accountable for what they do with your money.It's not a question of not accepting the explanation. I want to hear it. We haven't heard that from anyone at SOE, publicly. What is so bizzare about asking the people that made a decision to man up and say it out loud? I'm perfectly aware that the bottom line here is profit; that's the whole miserable point of the concerns we (the people that have the concerns) have raised: If you want to make more money, prioritize the game instead of nonsense like Station Cash, because the amount of money you make from SC and RMT is nothing compared to subscriptions. That's the meat and potatoes. And subscribers aren't going to keep playing a dying game.I, for one, believe EQ2 has more long-term profit potential than just "milk these people til they quit." If you accept that, good for you, and enjoy whatever game you play after EQ2 fails. I'd rather that not happen.To turn this around, I find your view of EQ2 cold and uninvested. EQ2 may be a profit-making machine for SOE, but if that's all it is to you, you wouldn't enjoy my guild or the people in it. I know very well that my money is just profit to SOE, but I don't believe everyone involved in the development and maintenance of Norrath thinks of nothing but dollar signs.A ten year solid title with high subscription rates makes more money than a six year title that fizzles out thanks to flash and nonsense that doesn't support the core of the game. You want to talk profit? That's your profit. If SOE can come out here and say that they're literally going to make more money through Station Cash than a solid long-term title, so be it.The bottom line here is that I think SOE owes it to us to outline it, no matter how obvious it may be to you. I'm the type of person that asks people to explain themselves when they make decisions. When my people say "I want to do X," I expect them to explain why, how, and what results might look like. I don't accept simple statements at face value, and I don't make assumptions that motivations are what they seem to be.If you think that makes me silly and that this is a waste of time, so be it. If you don't see value in it, so be it. I believe in public, transparent accountability to the stakeholders. That's all I'm asking for.</blockquote>First, I simply pay for a monthly service provided by SOE, I do not have any investment in the company. I am not at all confused about my position in relation to SOE - I give SOE a monthly subscription fee, which they are free to do with as they please. Should I no longer enjoy the service they provide, or think they are acting in an unethical manner, I go somewhere else.Trying to expand virtual item sales and moving towards a F2P model are both perfectly legitimate business decisions, especially as many of their competitors are taking similar actions, and such models are proving successful in other games.Now, I've been involved with various SOE products for years, and have racked up thousands of posts on these forums. To say I am cold and uninvested is to ignore this history. What I am not is entitled, however. I know my position as a customer does not entitle me to any particular knowledge about what SOE may do. I may like to know, and if SOE decides to provide tha information, fine, but I also realize they are under no obligation to do so.More than that, however, is that I don't think SOE can outline anything in this case - the business situation can change very rapidly, and given that people still try to hold SOE to every statement made by any SOE person over the years, SOE is better off keeping quiet.That said, I think you know full well that SOE is simply looking for ways to make more money, as is any other for-profit enterprise. If you think that more virtual item sales and introducing an F2P option will not accomplish this, fine, but don't act so surprised that they are pursuing these methods, given the success other games have had with them.

Wurm

08-01-2010, 05:52 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I appreciate your desire to defend this policy and action as inevitable, Daesin, and that you do not fault the policy or how it is being implemented.Some of us respectfully disagree and believe that the SOE leadership owes more explanation than you do. We were directed to take that request elsewhere in the forums, and I have done exactly that.I hope that you will respect others' views that SOE should explain why RMT trumps other concerns. You clearly feel the answer is "because it makes us more money, and that's most important." I don't accept that, and it seems others share my view. To that end, this thread seeks said explanation.</blockquote>And what sort of an explanation do you really want? If Smedley said, in effect, SOE needs to make more money, and more Station Cash exposure allows us to do that (and without incurring too much cost, either), why would you not accept that? This is why I think you have trouble accepting that SOE is first and foremost a business.</blockquote><cite>Wurm wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rothgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread needs a reality-check.CommentaryThe marketplace is an important revenue stream to the company and it has nothing to do with the new Free-to-Play service. Even without the new service, SOE would still want to continue to market and drive awareness to this feature. Its what helps pay the bills, keeps the team at the current size so we can offer the same level of content and allow us to spend money on new hardware. You're welcome to ignore the button, sneer at it, curse it, edit your XML and change it to a happy face or any other creative solution you can come up with, but its going to remain there in the Default UI.SC Items Appearing in NPC Merchant WindowsWe've heard your issues with this and we've taken steps to greatly reduce the number of items that appear on NPC merchants. We've also changed the sorting so that these items will always appear at the bottom when sorted by price. This was all based on your constructive feedback. However, the items won't be taken out of the window, see my comments above, they also apply here.</blockquote>We, your player base, pay your bills. And EQ2 still makes a profit because of us. We, your player base, know that Station Cash and the Market Place are there, and we use it. Having a SC button on our XP bar and all over our broker/merchant windows will not make us use it more. It is already easy enough to find and use right from the welcoming screen when we log in.Not listening to us is going to cause EQ2 to make even less of a profit when we, the majority of your loyal players, get tired of being treated like walking wallets and leave. You had then better pray that the extended servers are a roaring success.And one last thing, your company just fired a few of the most talented people you had on your team, so saying this is keeping the team the current size is laughable.I copied over and tried out the new UI, there is nothing there I like better than the old UI except the f10 functionability. There you have my feed back as requested.</blockquote>Thats my post from the other thread.

Iskandar

08-01-2010, 06:06 PM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I, for one, believe EQ2 has more long-term profit potential than just "milk these people til they quit." If you accept that, good for you, and enjoy whatever game you play after EQ2 fails. I'd rather that not happen.</blockquote>I agree completely, Sesketh. At present, EQ2 has a strong and fiercly loyal core of subscribers. Many of us have been here since the Beta servers first opened their doors to us, and we have stuck with EQ2 through thick and thin since then. And many were just as loyal to EQ1 before that.As I've said before, something is obviously working quite well, or we wouldn't all be here.Change is inevitable, and I for one understand and accept that. Having the SC button on the new UI is tacky, yes, but it's no more intrusive than the EQ2 button currently is -- and most likely I will be using a new version of ProfitUI anyways, and never even see it.Now, without going into the other changes (class neutrality, F2P, EQ2X, etc), the Marketplace, though reviled by some, has great potential as a revenue source. And like it or not, industry experts all agree that RMT is where the online gaming industry is headed -- RMT-based sales are expected to rise from $800 million in 2009 to $7 billion in 2015. Companies such as LiveGamer, which deals exclusively with RMT-based games, report an average revenue of $28 per player. Name a company that wouldn't be interested in numbers like that!Sony's initial efforts into RMT, via the Marketplace, have been... clumsy. It's a learning experience -- they have to balance their offerings with what the community will accept, all while working to make a profit. And I'm sure we can all agree that we all want EQ2 to be profitable -- otherwise, we will follow the same path that Matrix Online so recently took.One of the largest complaints I see in these forums in regards to the Marketplace is the pricing structure. You can see the imbalance of the EQ2 pricing by comparing it to SOE's FreeRealms Marketplace. Both use the same pool of Station Cash and deal in comparable items. With FreeRealms, SOE clearly had a solid plan before they began.. with EQ2, it began as a work in progress and remains unfinished. And, as a result, it continues to appear somewhat "greedy." In the real world, prices fluctuate based on demand and cost every day -- the price of gas is a good example -- and we accept that change. No one goes on a bender because they paid 2 cents more for gas yesterday than it's being offered today. So price adjustments in the Marketplace should occur, and frankly they should be no surprise.That being said, here are a few FreeRealms to EQ2 comparisons:<ul><li>In FreeRealms, you can purchase a Tiger, Hoverboard, Unicorn, or Dragon mount for 550sc... a T-Rex or Horse for 450sc... and a Racer Cart for 700sc. In EQ2, both the Prowlers and the Stormclouds are 2,500sc. In real-world terms, FreeRealms charges $4.50-$7.00 US for the comparable items that cost $25.00 in EQ2 (100sc=$1 US).</li><li>For housing items, in FreeRealms you can get a Robgoblin Trunk for 150sc... in EQ2, a Cherry Grove Chest is 500sc. A Pirate Ship Bed is 150sc, and a Starry Night Bed is 75sc in FreeRealms... in EQ2 we have a Halas Pioneer Bed for 400 and a Cherry Grove Sleigh Bed for 700. A FreeRealms Stone Bookcase is 25sc... an EQ2 Cherry Grove Tall Bookcase is 300sc. A Flower Highback Sofa in FreeRealms is 50sc... an EQ2 Cherry Grove Loveseat is 300sc. A Starry Night rug is 25 sc in FreeRealms... a Halas Pioneer Rug is 400sc in EQ2. Again, in real-word terms, we see FreeRealms asking as low as 25-75 cents for items, with most costing $1-2, while EQ2 is charging $3-7, with most pieces going for $4.</li><li>For pure appearance weapons/items, in FreeRealms we see a Father's Day Grillin Fork for 50sc, an Ice Cream Cone for 100sc, a Rainbow Umbrella for 200sc, a Lantern for 225sc.... in EQ2 we see a Wand of Effervescence for 100sc, a Wand of Darkness for 200sc, a Broom of Trilon for 500sc, and a Firiona Vie Wand for 500sc. Again, FreeRealms charges 50 cents to $2.25, while EQ2 is $1-5.</li><li>For appearance clothing, in FreeRealms we see Pinstripe Pants for 100sc, a New School Mage Robe for 100sc, a Tiki Mask Hat for 450sc, a Luau Outfit Set for 500sc, an Astronaut Suit set for 600sc, and a Vintage Diving Suit set for 750sc.... in EQ2, we have Mushroom Caps for 400sc, a Freethinkers Hat for 500sc, a Mermaid Scale Cloak for 700sc, a Pink Formal Robe for 700sc, and Sets of various gear for 1000sc. The difference here isn't as great, especially for the full sets, but FreeRealms is still clearly less expensive. A full set of gear is $5-7.50 in FreeRealms, and $10 in EQ2... a single robe is as low as $1 in FreeRealms, and $7 in EQ2... a hat in both games is around $4-5, with FreeRealms coming in only .50c cheaper than EQ2.</li><li>For potions in FreeRealms we see a Prospector's Scroll (1 hour coin boost) for 50sc, a Super Star Booster (1 hour exp pot) for 200sc, a Shared Health Potion (5-charge 75% group heal) for 200sc, a Large Energy Potion (5-charge 75% power regen) for 50sc, and a Large Health Potion (5-charge 75% self heal) for 50sc... EQ2 does not offer comparable items for many of these, but it does have an exp potion, the Flask of Adventuring, a 1-charge potion which varies from 100sc to 1,000sc depending on the amount of exp boost.</li><li>Illusion and particle effects in FreeRealms are granted via the use of food, which has 3 charges (and I think it lasts 1 hour... I'm not certain on the duration atm). A food with a graphic particle effect costs 100sc, an illusion effect costs 200sc, and a skill-boosting effect is 50sc. In EQ2, the closest analogies are the petamorph wands (5 charges for 2 hours) at 100sc and the Minor Illusion Stone (200 charges that last only 5 minutes each) for 200sc.</li><li>The biggest difference, item for item, is appearance backpacks -- a Shark Fin Backpack in FreeRealms is 100sc, or $1... in EQ2, the various appearance backpacks are 1500-2000, or $15-20.</li><li>FreeRealms also offers additional hairstyles, wing patterns, and face paints on their Marketplace for 50sc each, and sells housing lots for as low as 300sc for an entry-level (2-room equivalent) home.</li></ul>From my perspective, the Marketplace in EQ2 would do much better sales with a pricing system more consistent with FreeRealms. It IS supposed to be micro-transactions, after all. Yes, EQ2 models have more polygons and better texture resolutions... but enough to justify such extreme markups from one game to the other? As a Graphic Designer, I'd have to say no.And just think: If one person is willing to spend $25 on a mount, imagine how many would be willing to spend $5. If the Prowlers had cost $5, I would have bought around 8 of them... as it is now, I have bought none.In the design field, there is an old expression: We offer Low Cost, Fast Turnaround, and High Quality... you can pick any two. In EQ2, the choice seems to have been High Quality and Fast Turnaround... in FreeRealms it is Low Cost and Fast Turnaround. Instead of seeing 3-5 new Marketplace items every week in EQ2, I would gladly settle for 3-5 items every 3-4 weeks if it meant they were affordable to the majority of the playerbase.We ARE in a recession after all, and many of your players (including myself and nearly 1/3 of the people I raid with) are unemployed.The second, and probably the most prevalent, complaint in regards to the Marketplace (and RMT in general) is over stat-based items. No one wants to feel that they HAVE to pay just to be able to do something.In FreeRealms, the stat gear that is sold on the Marketplace is available as drops in instances (drops and purchases have different appearances or particle effects) -- it becomes a matter of, do you want to run this instance x# times or do you want to pay a couple of bucks? Instances in FreeRealms are designed differently than those in EQ2, of course... they're smaller, faster, and so much easier, and everyone gets the reward at the end -- it's designed for the most casual of the casual, and for children and young teens.But keeping an imbalance of stat-based items off an RMT Marketplace isn't dificult to do. Look at Gaia -- thousands of items for sale, and not a single stat or effect on almost all of them. It's all about "the look" of your avatar. Those items that do have effects are either considerably cheaper for paid subscribers or can be purchased inworld for a sufficient amount of game curency. Their RMT focus is on creating a unique appearance, and many of their items are offered for only a limited time to further ensure that uniqueness.There are so many things that could be added to the Marketplace that would provide easy revenue for SOE without affecting gameplay AT ALL. Here's a few quick ones:<ul><li>Add scripting to the Marketplace furniture sets (ie, Cherry Grove) that allows them to be color-customized. Right click and choose a color, to create a unique appearance, with the color data being saved in the layouts along with position information. Then provide the recipie to create the unscripted original furniture (that we currently see) to crafters. It too could be sold on the Marketplace, provided the cost is no higher than 100sc -- I would suggest 25-50sc. (As a Carpenter, I don't like the idea of "buying" my recipies with real money... but this is far better than not getting the recipies AT ALL.) This preserves the offerings of the Marketplace by giving it a unique color-change feature, and further bolsters the paying customerbase by adding to their own offerings.</li><li>Add new hair styles, wing patterns, and tattoos/woad/facepaint that can be applied via the Barber once they are purchased in the Marketplace. As with FreeRealms, keep the price at no more than 50sc. Much of this is already available ingame and would require no design work -- wing styles from the Arasaii could be purchased by the Fae, or vice versa... and hair styles from existing races could be offered to others that use a compatible body model.</li><li>Offer furniture items from holiday events. Want to get some Frostfell decor in July? Pay for it, buy it from a player, or wait till Frostfell comes in December. Ran out of Kelethin Floor Tiles and don't want to pay the crazy high plat prices on the Broker, or wait till the City Festival returns in six months? Buy it on the Marketplace for a reasonable cost (walls and floor tiles cost 100sc ($1) in FreeRealms). Want some more Valorian Blooms after the quest is removed in the next GU? Put em on the Marketplace. Liked that Charasis Pillar you got from the quest, but the quest isn't repeatable? Buy a new one from a player, or on the Marketplace. There are literally thousands of items you could use here.</li><li>You could even expand the event items to past World Events as well... the Griffon Tower Model, the various Diety clicky weapons, the items from the Wizard Spire events and the current Druid Ring event. Folks who are new to the game and missed those events, or folks who simply didn't get enough when they had the chance could find a new opportunity via the Marketplace. </li><li>Offer player housing on the Marketplace. Want a 5-bedroom house, but have more cash than plat or status? Buy the deed on the Marketplace. Monthly rent charges should still apply. For a much higher price, you could also offer the LON rent-free home, exactly as it is now.</li><li>Likewise, alternate housing styles could be offered. Really like the style of the Kelethin home, but you live in Neriak? Buy a Kelethin home style for your Neriak home. No one will even know unless they actually enter your home. This could grow and expand to include completely new and unique housing designs, such as the Airship being offered at Fan Faire this year.</li></ul>Note that none of those items I suggest have any effect on game balance or game play. All are available (or were available) via ingame means. Yes, some people will not like these ideas... but as I said before, change is inevitable. And whether we like it or not, this game WILL change... now is the time to offer input that can shape whether this is a GOOD change or a NEGATIVE one.SOE, it IS possible for you to make money via an RMT Maketplace with the existing Live servers and populations without driving players away in droves. Nor is there any need to destroy the crafting side of the game to expand your Marketplace offerings either. Everything you need is already here.

Iskandar

08-01-2010, 06:20 PM

^^^It's a weeee bit of a long post, and I do apologize for that, but I wanted to make sure I covered a few points. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" />

ElnAckom

08-01-2010, 06:24 PM

<cite>Iskandar wrote:</cite><blockquote>^^^It's a weeee bit of a long post, and I do apologize for that, but I wanted to make sure I covered a few points. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>We were invited to have the open debate and discussion; I don't think anyone will fault you for such a meaningful, well-detailed contributon! /thumbsup /agree

Guy De Alsace

08-01-2010, 06:58 PM

Just wanted to say this is so far the only thread I've looked at on this thats trying to not be the alpha and omega of emotional hyperbole. So thumbs up there.In my opinion ( I stress my opinion) RMT could be a lifeline for survival. I say this because it really has totally resurrected DDO from the grave. It works and works far better than the subs ever did. Not saying that it will definitely work in EQ2 but hell, it HAS to be a lot better than watching it die by degrees which is what is currently happening.Regarding the UI changes, firstly the station cash integration is a good thing. It improves functionality, visibility and ease of use of the old clunky station cash window. It means that SC is easier to use for those that use it and its just as ignorable now as it always was. The SC button doesnt seem to be intrusive to me. Its not in stabbing bright red or anything, its not in the middle of the bottom bar. Its on the far right, in a pinky colour. I didnt really notice it at all after a few minutes on test.Having SC horses on the vendor is also a good thing. If you are unguilded, finding a decent horse can be a pain especially if you dont know what quests give you mounts or you are too low level to find one. With the SC integration, a new player can see straight away that there's always an option to buy a horse with RMT if they cant find one in game.Iskandar makes a very strong argument against the current pricing which I've always maintained is way too high. Someone needs to whiteboard that post in your next board meeting SOE!

Kordran

08-01-2010, 08:42 PM

I've got to wonder, how many people who are ranting about this have actually logged into Test Copy and checked it out? I have, and honestly, folks are making a mountain out of a molehill here. The EQ button is on the bottom left, the SC button balances it on the bottom right; it doesn't "take over" the UI by any stretch of the imagination.I understand that there are people who are just philosophically opposed to this and find it to be objectionable in any shape or form. But just looking at it as a UI element, without the attached baggage of what it represents in a larger sense, it's not a big deal.As far as RMT goes, I have no problems with people buying fluff in the game and "utility" types of things (character transfers, name/gender/race changes, etc.) I'm not a big fan of buying useful equipment/spells, I think those things should be earned by actually playing the game, but I also realize that times are changing. It's a different environment than it was when we started playing MMOs back in the "old days" and SOE has to do what it feels is in its best, long-term interests.SOE is trying to thread the needle here, and actually I think they deserve some credit for even making the attempt. My concern, of course, is that it's often the case that when you try to make everyone happy, you really end up making no one happy. We'll see how it all plays out, but it seems that they are listening, even if the answer ends up being one that we might not personally like.

MurFalad

08-01-2010, 10:30 PM

<cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've got to wonder, how many people who are ranting about this have actually logged into Test Copy and checked it out? I have, and honestly, folks are making a mountain out of a molehill here. The EQ button is on the bottom left, the SC button balances it on the bottom right; it doesn't "take over" the UI by any stretch of the imagination.</blockquote>I disagree, upon logging in 3/5ths of the welcome screen was an advert to buy something, I'm a subscriber, I should be given a premium service feel, instead I feel like I'm playing an advertising run service. And the SC button is unnecessary for most peoples gameplay, so why have it prominent on the taskbar? I've never used it once before, I was warming to the idea that if I saw something I want I might buy it (I have browsed the marketplace now and then), but then the hard sell came along and I'm pretty anti it now on principle.If they are worried that people will log in and not know about the market place then there is an simple tried and tested way to solve that problem. Just award everyone 1000 SC upon starting a new subscription account and let them buy something, all the items are virtual anyway so it costs zero, this gets everyone to know its there, generates goodwill and likely more sales.This pushy sales approach instead isn't a good technique in my opinion.

Kordran

08-02-2010, 12:05 AM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've got to wonder, how many people who are ranting about this have actually logged into Test Copy and checked it out? I have, and honestly, folks are making a mountain out of a molehill here. The EQ button is on the bottom left, the SC button balances it on the bottom right; it doesn't "take over" the UI by any stretch of the imagination.</blockquote>I disagree, upon logging in 3/5ths of the welcome screen was an advert to buy something, I'm a subscriber, I should be given a premium service feel, instead I feel like I'm playing an advertising run service. </blockquote>The SC button and the welcome screen are two completely different things (and different issues). If you don't like the wlecome screen, then the fix is simple. Add the following line to your eq2.ini file:cl_show_welcome_screen_on_startup 0No more welcome screen when you login. Anyone who is truly bothered by this, and does even the simplest searching on Google will find out how to disable that feature. It's a non-issue.

Wurm

08-02-2010, 02:22 AM

<cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've got to wonder, how many people who are ranting about this have actually logged into Test Copy and checked it out? I have, and honestly, folks are making a mountain out of a molehill here. The EQ button is on the bottom left, the SC button balances it on the bottom right; it doesn't "take over" the UI by any stretch of the imagination.</blockquote>I disagree, upon logging in 3/5ths of the welcome screen was an advert to buy something, I'm a subscriber, I should be given a premium service feel, instead I feel like I'm playing an advertising run service. </blockquote>The SC button and the welcome screen are two completely different things (and different issues). If you don't like the wlecome screen, then the fix is simple. Add the following line to your eq2.ini file:cl_show_welcome_screen_on_startup 0No more welcome screen when you login. Anyone who is truly bothered by this, and does even the simplest searching on Google will find out how to disable that feature. It's a non-issue.</blockquote>Oh yeah forcing people to edit their EQ2.ini is really the answer... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />

TaleraRis

08-02-2010, 03:21 AM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've got to wonder, how many people who are ranting about this have actually logged into Test Copy and checked it out? I have, and honestly, folks are making a mountain out of a molehill here. The EQ button is on the bottom left, the SC button balances it on the bottom right; it doesn't "take over" the UI by any stretch of the imagination.</blockquote>I disagree, upon logging in 3/5ths of the welcome screen was an advert to buy something, I'm a subscriber, I should be given a premium service feel, instead I feel like I'm playing an advertising run service. </blockquote>I think this is an important point. There are many websites out there that offer a "Premium" service where the person visiting doesn't have to be subjected to ads all the time. This choice is being taken away from us, despite the fact that as regular monthly subscribers we would qualify as this sort of "Premium" level of service.

BabyAngel

08-02-2010, 03:59 AM

I would like an explanation on why we are going to see merchants in game selling SC items...I'm poor enough in the real world as it is without having to be reminded of it by in-game merchants.

Kordran

08-02-2010, 06:27 AM

<cite>Wurm wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh yeah forcing people to edit their EQ2.ini is really the answer... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I don't see how anyone is being "forced" to do anything. If they don't like the welcome window that's shown on login, I just showed you how to disable it. If you're not capable of opening notepad and cutting-and-pasting, well ... not much I can really say there. The point is, SOE has given you the option to disable it. They haven't made it convenient to disable from within the game, but it is there. If they really wanted to force you to see the thing, they wouldn't have added that option to begin with.You're choosing to look at this as the glass being half empty because the welcome screen exists. I'm saying it's half full because they give you a way to disable it if you don't like it. A matter of perspective, I suppose.

Kordran

08-02-2010, 06:32 AM

<cite>BabyAngel wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would like an explanation on why we are going to see merchants in game selling SC items...I'm poor enough in the real world as it is without having to be reminded of it by in-game merchants.</blockquote>Maybe it's based on customer polling data or some kind of in-game metrics, maybe it's really just wishful thinking that they'll get more players using it, or maybe they think it'll actually be a convenience rather than objectionable. Who knows? Personally, I'd at least prefer that they put it on a different tab rather than mixing it up with the standard items on a merchant.

kcirrot

08-02-2010, 08:18 AM

Wurm

08-02-2010, 09:06 AM

<cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wurm wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh yeah forcing people to edit their EQ2.ini is really the answer... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I don't see how anyone is being "forced" to do anything. If they don't like the welcome window that's shown on login, I just showed you how to disable it. If you're not capable of opening notepad and cutting-and-pasting, well ... not much I can really say there. The point is, SOE has given you the option to disable it. They haven't made it convenient to disable from within the game, but it is there. If they really wanted to force you to see the thing, they wouldn't have added that option to begin with.You're choosing to look at this as the glass being half empty because the welcome screen exists. I'm saying it's half full because they give you a way to disable it if you don't like it. A matter of perspective, I suppose.</blockquote>If it was a true option you would have a check mark on check mark off under settings. I've been gaming for years and I'm not a stranger to *.ini tweaking. But we have a lot of people who play EQ2 who don't even know what a *.ini is, let alone how to change anything in it.And those are the people most likely to be using the default UI.So no, your "helpful tip" isn't the answer to the problem that is the SC nonsense being added this coming GU.

Maroger

08-02-2010, 01:46 PM

Rothgar is absolutely right - RMT/Micro Transactions are the present and future of MMOs - they are here to stay. Like them or hate they are not going away.Never forget that SOE is a business and has to make money for salaries etc. SC is a great way to give them more revenue. Lets face subscriptions DO NOT PAY all the bills and provide the money needed for major development projects. Well you all want new stuff, expansions etc. - that means SOE has to have money for that and RMT/mircortransactions are agreat way to bring in more case. Whether you like it or not they are now and forever a part of all MMMos.First of all you need a player base that goes beyond teenagers with unlimited time to play and grind out. That was the model when EQ1 first came out. Well the player base now is wider and has all age groups and more older people are playing. Often they don't have the hours to play but that doesn't mean they don't want to improve their characters and have things to enhance their game play. That is the niche that RMT and micro transactions are filling and rightly so.I think EQ2EX will be a big success -- look at the sucess of Free Realms. It has more players than EQ2 and brings in more money to boot. There are lot of things in EQ2EX that could and should come over to enhance the game experience for low level players in EQ2 and provide certain enhancement for high level players.I tried out EQ2EX and saw a lot of nice things. I couldn't bear to start over a game at level 1 - but I see things they are doing for low level characters that would enhance this game too.Yes they are selling Mastercrafted Equipment -- at level 1, 12, and I think 22. I don't think that is a bad idea. When was the last time you saw a set of bronze armor or even blackened iron for sale on the broker. No one is going to go out and farm for those rares and the make the amor. I really don't think it affects game play to have this available for sale to low level players. I wouldn't advocate it once a player reaches level 30 - but I think it is nice at the level where the stuff is not available on the broker. It is not like they are selling legendary or fabled ( which is on the broker put there by players).Also they had some nice potions and stuff that would do well in EQ2 without being game breakers. - they one that reduced the time for the Research Assistant -- Nice potion - please bring it to EQ2 SC. Also I like the scroll of Tracking which lets you track mobs - for a couple of hours. It would be nice to have when you want tosee if some Named you need is available. These are not game breakers -- I think of them as Game enhancers.Look SC already sells mounts, Escape Potions, XP Potions, TS potions AA potions -- I don't think that hurts the game at all -- it helps it. I wouldn't be without my escape potion for my coercer. Unlike the woodworker totem it is instant and no casting time. I love it.RMT/Micro Transactions are here to stay for all games. Just running around yelling NO NO NO NO - isn't going to stop it - you can either make good suggestions and be a part of guiding the directions they take or sit on the sidelines complainging -- but get real - they are here to stay and aren't going away.I don't understand the complaints about the SC button in the new GU - it is part of the game and should be on the bar. SO it is big -- well I don't care -- it doesn't spoil my game to have it there, I am sorry if it spoils yours. But a button is just a button - you don't have to click on it you know.

ElnAckom

08-02-2010, 02:30 PM

I do like the idea of a separate tab. I understand from the perspective of the dollar that SOE wants more exposure... but there's a diametrically opposed gameplay interest - immersion - that is breached by some forms of exposure. The button is easily skinned out, and I certainly plan to do so. By placing the RMT-purchaseable items on another tab, the most exposure I'd get would be that tab, and I would consider that a material improvement. It might also give our UI community a way to filter those items out.I have a feeling that's not viable out of the gate from the marketing perspective, but it's nice to have heard it floated.Perhaps the dymanic data could be provided that would still allow UI modders to both strip out those items and remove the SC count as a valid form of currency. Interesting suggestions, and nice to hear. I hope you'll make those suggestions in the UI thread.I also agree that editing the .INI is a fix that we'll all probably undertake. Eliminating the welcome screen was easy the first time and will be easy the second time. (Though even some vets like it; that's cool. Options are good.) I wager many gamers can do the basic copy-paste of code.But this conversation isn't about ways to hide RMT... this conversation is about why RMT. Several people believe the answer is so simple - "more money and to heck with your opinion" - that they find this conversation a waste of time. That's fine. But I don't think asking SOE to explain why this is a development team top priority, given all the other things the playerbase has requested with consistency, is a waste of time. RMT in some customers' opinions as expressed here, needs to be more fully explained by SOE not just as a UI tweak, but in the context of how it affects our product and subscription as loyal monthly subscribers who may not want parts of the implementation in our world. That's the discussion I continue to believe is missing.There is a point recently made that I've heard, more to the heart of the matter, both in PM and on the forums, summed up here:<cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've read the posts here and I just want to comment on this because it illustrates the fundamental mistake you're making. SOE hasn't spent YOUR money to do anything. Your subscription dollars, once you've given them to SOE, belong to SOE. Whether they want to spend them on improving the game, RMT, liquor or prostitutes, it's none of your business.</blockquote>I find this perspective utterly perplexing. It is never a mistake to use every avenue at your disposal to express the will of the customer. The very idea that once your money leaves your pocket and flows to any company or organization, all bets are off, and the only available recourse is to quit and walk away, is to my way of thinking defeatist. It is absolutely my business, and all of yours as well, what SOE does so long as I'm a subscriber.Example.Recently my wife had a car accident, sideswiped a safety bollard in a parking garage just a bit, but enough to cave in the right rocker panel. Cosmetic, but annoying. At the time of impact, her car - small, geometric in shape - suffered enough lateral force to flex the frame of the windshield slightly. Two symmetrical cracks appeared on the windshield, small but enough that over time they would expand, as they did. To cut to the chase, we filed an insurance claim with a company we've both been with for a combined total thirty years. Everything went smoothly - one accident, one claim, one deductible - right up until it came time to settle up. They fixed the rocker panel, but not the windshield, asking for a separate claim to be filed and paid, in direct contravention of what we were told the first time.If I were to take the perspective of "well this is unacceptable, my only recourse is to cancel that they have my money," I'd have had to take the car to another shop, get a new insurance company, and pay an additional $250 to fix the windshield.Unacceptable.You use every communications avenue you have, you calmly and clearly express the situation and what recourse you require, and you follow up the food chain. You hold companies that make decisions that negatively impact loyal customers accountable. In the end, do you win? Sometimes not, and then maybe you do take your money elsewhere. But the idea that a paying customer can't or shouldn't appeal to the company's decision-makers does not seem to be an effective way of getting what you want.If I take the former view, I end up without EQ2. I don't want that! I'd rather a better EQ2 or even the same EQ2 than no EQ2 at all. We're here discussing these things because we love this game value this product. (We can stick to corporate speak if you like.)In my example, I took the empowered view, and I ended up with a completely repaired vehicle at no additional cost, and an apology from the company for doing the wrong thing in the first place. In the end, through diligence and communication, it did the right thing by its customer. That might not be my money now that if left my pocket, but when decisions are made that affect my life, I have a right to recount exactly how much I paid, what I expected, what breach occurred in what I got in return, and what I expect as recourse.You don't have to be a jerk about it; nobody on this thread is jumping up and down screaming like a lunatic that we don't understand RMT as a capitalist reality, that this is "dump stupid bullcrap," or "fine I quit!" To the contrary: Let's have a rational discussion like adults about differences of opinion, and try to better understand the policy rationale behind a decision that is in testing now that will affect our product experience.It is not in a company's best interests to ignore and rebuff customers. Never has been, never will. I don't accept the repeated "business" argument that we're all just cash registers. This isn't a parking garage; it's a customer-based service provision firm we're dealing with, and that means customer opinion matters. The idea that we are all powerless peons beyond our $14.99 a month just doens't fly. I think that Rothgar and Amnerys and Zolt and Gnobrin and Brasse and SmokeJumper and even Smed (the man arguably least connected to We The Players by virtue of his current position) have more respect for the playerbase than that... even a loud loony lizard like me. Someone else said it best: "RMT doesn't keep the lights on; we subscribers do."As subscribers, it is not unreasonable to ask a policymaker at SOE who was party to making the decisions to push RMT high on the list, over other priorities, to explain publicly why they did so. Is that person obligated? No. But it's my right as a subcriber - and yours as well - to calmly and directly ask.Thank you to everyone who is contributing to the improvement of EverQuest II, no matter how.

ElnAckom

08-02-2010, 02:36 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Never forget that SOE is a business and has to make money for salaries etc. SC is a great way to give them more revenue. Lets face subscriptions DO NOT PAY all the bills and provide the money needed for major development projects. Well you all want new stuff, expansions etc. - that means SOE has to have money for that and RMT/mircortransactions are agreat way to bring in more case. Whether you like it or not they are now and forever a part of all MMMos.</blockquote>Exactly. And if someone from corporate who made this decision would say, publicly, "guys, this is the fiscal reality: we can't support the level of content construction and game enhancement that you want without additional revenue now that EQ2 isn't the hot new kid on the block anymore, and once we get that new revenue flowing, we've got X, Y, and Z planned like you've asked for," I'd set off my fireworks, hit /battlecry, and toddle along off this thread.Too much to ask?

Kordran

08-02-2010, 02:49 PM

<cite>Wurm wrote:</cite><blockquote>If it was a true option you would have a check mark on check mark off under settings. I've been gaming for years and I'm not a stranger to *.ini tweaking. But we have a lot of people who play EQ2 who don't even know what a *.ini is, let alone how to change anything in it.And those are the people most likely to be using the default UI.So no, your "helpful tip" isn't the answer to the problem that is the SC nonsense being added this coming GU.</blockquote>As I wrote previously, they don't make it easy, but they do make it available. If they really wanted to force you to see that welcome screen every time you logged in, they could have easily done that. They did not, and instead provided a way to disable it if you were motivated enough to learn how to do it. Besides that, you're conflating two completely different issues. The welcome screen has been in the game for well over a year now, it's not anything new, they've just redesigned it. The SC button is just a button in the lower-right corner of your screen that opens the Marketplace window. While they both have to do with the Marketplace, they're two distinctly different things.Edit: The thing that's pretty clear to me is that people aren't really having an issue with the UI per se, they just don't like the idea of the Marketplace, and they resent any attempt to make players more aware of it or put it "front and center" so to speak. I suspect, on that point, their only option is going to be voting with their wallet because it's become obvious what SOE's long-term vision for this game is.

bluefish

08-02-2010, 02:58 PM

Sorry, but this is SOE's game and money, they can do whatever they want with it and they owe us no explanation.They are in it to make money.We pay them so we can use their software .. we don't own it. The best you can do is provide feedback and they take it under consideration.But you have to keep in mind, just because you give feedback, no matter how much sense it makes to you, DOES NOT guarantee a change. It's their game and they make the decisions, not us.

Guy De Alsace

08-02-2010, 05:48 PM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Never forget that SOE is a business and has to make money for salaries etc. SC is a great way to give them more revenue. Lets face subscriptions DO NOT PAY all the bills and provide the money needed for major development projects. Well you all want new stuff, expansions etc. - that means SOE has to have money for that and RMT/mircortransactions are agreat way to bring in more case. Whether you like it or not they are now and forever a part of all MMMos.</blockquote>Exactly. And if someone from corporate who made this decision would say, publicly, "guys, this is the fiscal reality: we can't support the level of content construction and game enhancement that you want without additional revenue now that EQ2 isn't the hot new kid on the block anymore, and once we get that new revenue flowing, we've got X, Y, and Z planned like you've asked for," I'd set off my fireworks, hit /battlecry, and toddle along off this thread.Too much to ask?</blockquote>Publicly admitting your in trouble would seriously screw up their share price I think. Not being a businessman myself I wouldnt rightly know - just seems a good reason not to just come out with it.

Dreyco

08-02-2010, 06:00 PM

The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.

Maroger

08-02-2010, 06:12 PM

<ul><li><cite>Guy De Alsace wrote:</cite></li></ul><blockquote><cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Never forget that SOE is a business and has to make money for salaries etc. SC is a great way to give them more revenue. Lets face subscriptions DO NOT PAY all the bills and provide the money needed for major development projects. Well you all want new stuff, expansions etc. - that means SOE has to have money for that and RMT/mircortransactions are agreat way to bring in more case. Whether you like it or not they are now and forever a part of all MMMos.</blockquote>Exactly. And if someone from corporate who made this decision would say, publicly, "guys, this is the fiscal reality: we can't support the level of content construction and game enhancement that you want without additional revenue now that EQ2 isn't the hot new kid on the block anymore, and once we get that new revenue flowing, we've got X, Y, and Z planned like you've asked for," I'd set off my fireworks, hit /battlecry, and toddle along off this thread.Too much to ask?</blockquote>Publicly admitting your in trouble would seriously screw up their share price I think. Not being a businessman myself I wouldnt rightly know - just seems a good reason not to just come out with it.</blockquote>First of all it should be obvious that they need more money. Salaries are higher if you want to keep good and talented people, people's expenses are higher and let's face it the cost of living in California is very, very high. So they need to pay well. Just multiply the number of subscriber they post on their server page and you roughly estimate what they take permonth. But with all the game SOE has they need a lot of money for various development teams. I don't think they have to come and tell -- you should be able to see that for yourself.And for those of you who may not follow all the business news. SONY CORPORATION POSTED A LOSS - just like a lot of companies I don't know what division incurred big losses ( it might be their motion picture division which I know is doing poorly) - but the corporation as a whole posted a loss. This economy stinks and a lot of companies are posting losses. So if you don't SOE needs to make more money you are living on another planet.This is the posting of 2010 corporate report: The Networked Products & Services segment consists of Sony’s game business, PC and other networkrelated businesses.<div>The Networked Products & Services segment reported sales of ¥1,575.8 billion, down 10.2% year-on-year.<ul><li><div>The segment’s operating loss improved ¥4.4 billion year-on-year, to ¥83.1 billion.</div></li></ul><li>The segment’s operating loss narrowed despite a deterioration of operating income in the game business, due to an improvement in the profitability of Walkman ® digital music players and other products. </li></div>

Kordran

08-02-2010, 06:15 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.</blockquote>I recall reading an article that interviewed one of the WoW folks involved with the TV ads, and they admitted that they really haven't been able to show any direct correlation between those ads and an increase in subscriptions. It's more of a "mindshare" type of advertising where your goal isn't a bottom-line target, but rather to increase general awareness and improve public perception (i.e.: it's a game that "cool" people like Mr. T and Ozzy Osbourne play, not just pasty nerds living in their parent's basement ala South Park)That kind of advertising is great, if you have the discretionary profits to justify it. But it's not the sort of thing that contributes directly to the company's bottom line in a measurable, quantifiable way.

Whilhelmina

08-03-2010, 01:45 PM

I must say that the constant RMT publicities flashing accross my screen everywhere are starting to irrate me.Ok, SOE wanted a Station Market. It works well for them... But it's starting to impair on the game with tracking scrolls, most beautiful in game armors and house items and now non-fluff mounts.Ok, SOE wants a special all RMT version of the game. No problem, let those that want RMT have there own server and they won't bother me if they can't move to my server. It works with the exchange servers.But we were told Station market would not become mandatory, we just had to ignore it. Some like myself said we didn't want it, period. I ignored it mostly, bought a fluff thing with the SC we were given...And now...We have this BIG, HUGE, GINORMOUS and hideous SC button in the middle of the screen (my xp bar was always tiny and on top of my screen so I can't miss it... If it stay, the first thing I'll try to do when the GU goes live and if I'm still playing is altering the UI to hide it.But... ON MERCHANTS ??? ARE YOU KIDDING ?I don't want no goddamed SC wallet on my merchant screen or see some SC items on merchants like horses and so on. It's killing immersion, raming your damned RMT down our throat. We're big boys and girls, not kids, we have a brain and if we want to use SC we can click the button in the EQ2 window, no need to flash it everywhere across our screen! Where will it be next? In our bank? In our guild window? On big pannels everywhere on the cities walls "The overlord wants YOU to use SC!" "Long live Cristanos queen of RMT!" ???This must GO !

Dreyco

08-03-2010, 04:51 PM

<cite>Whilhelmina@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>I must say that the constant RMT publicities flashing accross my screen everywhere are starting to irrate me.Ok, SOE wanted a Station Market. It works well for them... But it's starting to impair on the game with tracking scrolls, most beautiful in game armors and house items and now non-fluff mounts.Ok, SOE wants a special all RMT version of the game. No problem, let those that want RMT have there own server and they won't bother me if they can't move to my server. It works with the exchange servers.But we were told Station market would not become mandatory, we just had to ignore it. Some like myself said we didn't want it, period. I ignored it mostly, bought a fluff thing with the SC we were given...And now...We have this BIG, HUGE, GINORMOUS and hideous SC button in the middle of the screen (my xp bar was always tiny and on top of my screen so I can't miss it... If it stay, the first thing I'll try to do when the GU goes live and if I'm still playing is altering the UI to hide it.But... ON MERCHANTS ??? ARE YOU KIDDING ?I don't want no goddamed SC wallet on my merchant screen or see some SC items on merchants like horses and so on. It's killing immersion, raming your damned RMT down our throat. We're big boys and girls, not kids, we have a brain and if we want to use SC we can click the button in the EQ2 window, no need to flash it everywhere across our screen! Where will it be next? In our bank? In our guild window? On big pannels everywhere on the cities walls "The overlord wants YOU to use SC!" "Long live Cristanos queen of RMT!" ???This must GO !</blockquote>Alright, enough is enough with the over-reacting.Here is what it really is:<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/Dreyco/RL%20pictures/EQ2_000002.jpg" width="799" height="449" />Here is apparently what people are seeing:<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/Dreyco/RL%20pictures/OMGSTATIONCASHBUTTON.jpg" />So either people are being skizophrenic and seeing things at sizes that aren't real, or they're over-exagerating to try to make their argument valid. It doesn't work that way, folks, because it isn't that way.The button takes up a portion of your screen that is smaller, once again, than a hotbutton. So let's stop referring to it as something "BIG, GINORMOUS, and HUGE" please? Because it's not.It is tiny. It is inobtrusive. And people are taking offense to it by virtue of its mere presence alone.Reality check people.

Barx

08-03-2010, 04:54 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>Alright, enough is enough with the over-reacting.Here is what it really is:{snip}Here is apparently what people are seeing:<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/Dreyco/RL%20pictures/OMGSTATIONCASHBUTTON.jpg" />So either people are being skizophrenic and seeing things at sizes that aren't real, or they're over-exagerating to try to make their argument valid. It doesn't work that way, folks, because it isn't that way.The button takes up a portion of your screen that is smaller, once again, than a hotbutton. So let's stop referring to it as something "BIG, GINORMOUS, and HUGE" please? Because it's not.It is tiny. It is inobtrusive. And people are taking offense to it by virtue of its mere presence alone.Reality check people.</blockquote>[Removed for Content]. I saw this as I was taking a drink of water and almost washed out my keyboard. I agree with you, people bombast like it's that big when it is smaller. There is some point on the principle of it, but those that don't want to see it do have options not to, via custom UIs or simply dragging it so that the button is off screen or behind a chat window.

Xill

08-03-2010, 05:00 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.

Xill

08-03-2010, 05:03 PM

<cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wurm wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh yeah forcing people to edit their EQ2.ini is really the answer... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I don't see how anyone is being "forced" to do anything. If they don't like the welcome window that's shown on login, I just showed you how to disable it. If you're not capable of opening notepad and cutting-and-pasting, well ... not much I can really say there. The point is, SOE has given you the option to disable it. They haven't made it convenient to disable from within the game, but it is there. If they really wanted to force you to see the thing, they wouldn't have added that option to begin with.You're choosing to look at this as the glass being half empty because the welcome screen exists. I'm saying it's half full because they give you a way to disable it if you don't like it. A matter of perspective, I suppose.</blockquote>What irks the hell out of me, is that on the welcome screen the "Hot Zones" and other in-game related things are outdated and NOT BEING UPDATED, while the marketplace items are updated weekly if not daily. Makes you wonder where the priority of dev time goes. And if its going towards more ways to make money, instead of making a better game... its turning into a cash sink with very little hope of any actual good gaming to come out of it.

Dreyco

08-03-2010, 05:04 PM

<cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.

Xill

08-03-2010, 05:07 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>*snip* huge post is huge quote = P</blockquote>The problem is where does it end? Slippery slope, chicken little whatever, its getting worse every year. How long until its bad enough? And once it gets that bad... what can be done about it? People keep saying "Get over it, its not that bad" But It keeps getting worse.

Maroger

08-03-2010, 05:12 PM

I can't believe the hysteria people are having over A BUTTON on the interface - SO WHAT. No one is making you click on it and no one is making you buy anything. So really stop whining about. It is not a big deal. If people want to buy stuff that is their business. And don't kid yourself - ALL MMO's are heading in this direction.

Dreyco

08-03-2010, 05:16 PM

<cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>*snip* huge post is huge quote = P</blockquote>The problem is where does it end? Slippery slope, chicken little whatever, its getting worse every year. How long until its bad enough? And once it gets that bad... what can be done about it? People keep saying "Get over it, its not that bad" But It keeps getting worse.</blockquote>A "button" is worse?Really?In what world?I'm still trying to figure that out.It hasn't gotten "Worse". LoN had a few slipups (which haven't been repeated), but other than that, it's stayed pretty much right on track. Enough is enough people. Remove the tin foil hats. I mean, seriously, if there was less ulcerative posting, there might be more "doing" and less "silence." As it is right now, people expect smokejumper to respond to irate and extremely negative postsI mean, people seriously need to act in a more mature manner: offering real constructive feedback. Then things might actually happen. That "Something" isn't going to be RMT "going away". I've said it once and i'll say it again. If folks don't like it, they can go find another product that doesn't have it. Oh wait, there isn't one!Instead, people are basing their arguments on a -button-? Again, reality check.

Xill

08-03-2010, 05:17 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.</blockquote>Right sorry, didnt read it correctly on the first pass.But with how little marketing you see, and how little exposure the game gets, its the company's own fault its not doing better. Not the players for not wanting to pay more. This is just another example of them following the lead of other MMO's but doing it wrong and failing.And if you look, they are still making MMO's based on monthly subs just not as many. Now take a look at the F2P market. Swamped with all kinds of crap. So many F2P or RMT style games out now its silly. So NOW SoE decides to jump the band wagon? When the market is flush with the exact same crap they are trying to just now push? Bad business on top of bad business.

Dreyco

08-03-2010, 05:20 PM

<cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.</blockquote>Right sorry, didnt read it correctly on the first pass.But with how little marketing you see, and how little exposure the game gets, its the company's own fault its not doing better. Not the players for not wanting to pay more. This is just another example of them following the lead of other MMO's but doing it wrong and failing.And if you look, they are still making MMO's based on monthly subs just not as many. Now take a look at the F2P market. Swamped with all kinds of crap. So many F2P or RMT style games out now its silly. So NOW SoE decides to jump the band wagon? When the market is flush with the exact same crap they are trying to just now push? Bad business on top of bad business.</blockquote>Your argument falls through again. You know what I see on the boards? People asking for -television- ads. They want the Sham-Wow guy to come onto TV doing EQ2.Do they really know what they're talking about here?EverQuest II has 2% of the subscription of that other game that has TV ads. TWO PERCENT. That's what we call an outlier in statistics, so of course that other company can advertise out the rear-end. It's all they spend their money on. Not on their product. Not on their game. Compare the updates they get to what we get. The investment is solely into marketing.And they've even come out and said that it doesn't work as well as it could. Why even chance it?

Xill

08-03-2010, 05:25 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>*snip* huge post is huge quote = P</blockquote>The problem is where does it end? Slippery slope, chicken little whatever, its getting worse every year. How long until its bad enough? And once it gets that bad... what can be done about it? People keep saying "Get over it, its not that bad" But It keeps getting worse.</blockquote>A "button" is worse?Really?In what world?I'm still trying to figure that out.It hasn't gotten "Worse". LoN had a few slipups (which haven't been repeated), but other than that, it's stayed pretty much right on track. Enough is enough people. Remove the tin foil hats. I mean, seriously, if there was less ulcerative posting, there might be more "doing" and less "silence." As it is right now, people expect smokejumper to respond to irate and extremely negative postsI mean, people seriously need to act in a more mature manner: offering real constructive feedback. Then things might actually happen. That "Something" isn't going to be RMT "going away". I've said it once and i'll say it again. If folks don't like it, they can go find another product that doesn't have it. Oh wait, there isn't one!Instead, people are basing their arguments on a -button-? Again, reality check.</blockquote>First, it was the exchange servers. Then, it was LoN, followed by the Station cash market. Which is now leading to 2 brand new servers being created, heavily marketing F2P, which will funnel most future players to them through marketing choices. Along with SoGa models becoming default (which are more popular in asia, the largets F2P market) and the UI being changed to push more RMT even on live servers.For anyone that doesnt like F2P, which is a large chunk of population, %'s aside its still going to be a large group of people, that are going to be completely alienated by this. All of them paying customers. So yes. Its getting worse. you might not care, but alot of people do and you dont seem to recognize that.

Xill

08-03-2010, 05:28 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.</blockquote>Right sorry, didnt read it correctly on the first pass.But with how little marketing you see, and how little exposure the game gets, its the company's own fault its not doing better. Not the players for not wanting to pay more. This is just another example of them following the lead of other MMO's but doing it wrong and failing.And if you look, they are still making MMO's based on monthly subs just not as many. Now take a look at the F2P market. Swamped with all kinds of crap. So many F2P or RMT style games out now its silly. So NOW SoE decides to jump the band wagon? When the market is flush with the exact same crap they are trying to just now push? Bad business on top of bad business.</blockquote>Your argument falls through again. You know what I see on the boards? People asking for -television- ads. They want the Sham-Wow guy to come onto TV doing EQ2.Do they really know what they're talking about here?EverQuest II has 2% of the subscription of that other game that has TV ads. TWO PERCENT. That's what we call an outlier in statistics, so of course that other company can advertise out the rear-end. It's all they spend their money on. Not on their product. Not on their game. Compare the updates they get to what we get. The investment is solely into marketing.And they've even come out and said that it doesn't work as well as it could. Why even chance it?</blockquote>People are asking for anything but RMT honestly. When I go to my local brick and mortar store, ask for the latest expac of eq2, and the guy asks "Wait you mean that really old game? I thought they shut that down" And they dont even have a SINGLE copy of the game on the shelf. Yeah thats the company sucking. And thats been going on for years.

Vlahkmaak

08-03-2010, 05:30 PM

The SC button is an option and as an option it should remain under the options tab. The SC button is not a buff, it is not a CA, it is not related to any game mechanic nor does it communicate any relevant information to us about our avatars in the game. SC though is an option - not a requirement.If your going to put a SC button on the UI right in our face why not hawk out billboard space to Pepsi Co, Coke, or even WoW, to advertise their products in our game space. Each griffon/soko/gnome ballon station could have its own in game flight commercial. You could add a Geko quest giver in Ferrot reminding us to consider Geiko as we go kill lizards. There is however no need for the SC button to be right in our face.If you want to make a big shiny neon green blinking button in the options menu thats fine. Design a tutorial quest around how to use the SC button for all I care - it can be part of the jumpy boots are not an exploit quest too - that would kill two birds with one stone.How much SC do you think a Bheastlord will be? I'd pay for that if you really want to sell me something.

Xill

08-03-2010, 05:35 PM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.</blockquote>Right sorry, didnt read it correctly on the first pass.But with how little marketing you see, and how little exposure the game gets, its the company's own fault its not doing better. Not the players for not wanting to pay more. This is just another example of them following the lead of other MMO's but doing it wrong and failing.And if you look, they are still making MMO's based on monthly subs just not as many. Now take a look at the F2P market. Swamped with all kinds of crap. So many F2P or RMT style games out now its silly. So NOW SoE decides to jump the band wagon? When the market is flush with the exact same crap they are trying to just now push? Bad business on top of bad business.</blockquote>Your argument falls through again. You know what I see on the boards? People asking for -television- ads. They want the Sham-Wow guy to come onto TV doing EQ2.Do they really know what they're talking about here?EverQuest II has 2% of the subscription of that other game that has TV ads. TWO PERCENT. That's what we call an outlier in statistics, so of course that other company can advertise out the rear-end. It's all they spend their money on. Not on their product. Not on their game. Compare the updates they get to what we get. The investment is solely into marketing.And they've even come out and said that it doesn't work as well as it could. Why even chance it?</blockquote>And actually, check out "Rift". New MMO coming out early next year. No RMT, no F2P. I am expecting most to jump ship for that game, since its made by some of the original Eq2 staff.

Dasein

08-03-2010, 05:48 PM

<cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.</blockquote>Right sorry, didnt read it correctly on the first pass.But with how little marketing you see, and how little exposure the game gets, its the company's own fault its not doing better. Not the players for not wanting to pay more. This is just another example of them following the lead of other MMO's but doing it wrong and failing.And if you look, they are still making MMO's based on monthly subs just not as many. Now take a look at the F2P market. Swamped with all kinds of crap. So many F2P or RMT style games out now its silly. So NOW SoE decides to jump the band wagon? When the market is flush with the exact same crap they are trying to just now push? Bad business on top of bad business.</blockquote>Your argument falls through again. You know what I see on the boards? People asking for -television- ads. They want the Sham-Wow guy to come onto TV doing EQ2.Do they really know what they're talking about here?EverQuest II has 2% of the subscription of that other game that has TV ads. TWO PERCENT. That's what we call an outlier in statistics, so of course that other company can advertise out the rear-end. It's all they spend their money on. Not on their product. Not on their game. Compare the updates they get to what we get. The investment is solely into marketing.And they've even come out and said that it doesn't work as well as it could. Why even chance it?</blockquote>And actually, check out "Rift". New MMO coming out early next year. No RMT, no F2P. I am expecting most to jump ship for that game, since its made by some of the original Eq2 staff.</blockquote>Yet.I'd expect a few to try it out, but like so many other supposed EQ2 killers, it will never live up to the hype, and in the end, will be just another VG, AoC or WAR. Sure, it may be a decent game and have a fair number of players, but the idea that everyone will suddently migrate en masse to a new game is implausible.

Iskandar

08-03-2010, 05:56 PM

Honestly, the button itself is a non-issue. It's already here, as an option under the EQ2 button. It can be easily replaced with a UI mod, or simply by sliding UI elements around. It's irrelevant.But the RMT aspect that the button represents is what I personally feel deserves a more detailed discussion. The main argument Smokejumper presented to us for having EQ2X as a separate service is the RMT -- primarily because of the additional selections made available on the X Marketplace. But RMT doesn't have to be "uber gear" to succeed, nor does it have to destroy entire tradeskill classes -- existing F2P games clearly demonstrate this.Apparently, current players have expressed a strong enough of a desire against stat-based and gameplay-affecting Marketplace items to convince SOE that RMT in general would not fly here. I could easily be wrong, but unless there was a poll I missed, I am not convinced they have sufficient feedback from the community at large to come to that conclusion. But as a result of that decision, we now have an EQ2X offering that does absolutely nothing whatsoever to encourage growth of the existing Live servers.There has to be a compromise solution that will be viable for both server styles. DDO and LOTRO each found a way to make it work... and so can we.I've made my input on the matter earlier in this thread (that behemoth of text that most folks prolly skipped <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" />). I know if we stop the arguing and drama and simply focus on a calm, rational discussion, we can develop a plan in conjunction with SOE that will be acceptable to us all. EQ2 will grow. EQ2X will grow. SOE will make a lot of money. And we will all remain as happy customers.

Xill

08-03-2010, 06:10 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.</blockquote>Right sorry, didnt read it correctly on the first pass.But with how little marketing you see, and how little exposure the game gets, its the company's own fault its not doing better. Not the players for not wanting to pay more. This is just another example of them following the lead of other MMO's but doing it wrong and failing.And if you look, they are still making MMO's based on monthly subs just not as many. Now take a look at the F2P market. Swamped with all kinds of crap. So many F2P or RMT style games out now its silly. So NOW SoE decides to jump the band wagon? When the market is flush with the exact same crap they are trying to just now push? Bad business on top of bad business.</blockquote>Your argument falls through again. You know what I see on the boards? People asking for -television- ads. They want the Sham-Wow guy to come onto TV doing EQ2.Do they really know what they're talking about here?EverQuest II has 2% of the subscription of that other game that has TV ads. TWO PERCENT. That's what we call an outlier in statistics, so of course that other company can advertise out the rear-end. It's all they spend their money on. Not on their product. Not on their game. Compare the updates they get to what we get. The investment is solely into marketing.And they've even come out and said that it doesn't work as well as it could. Why even chance it?</blockquote>And actually, check out "Rift". New MMO coming out early next year. No RMT, no F2P. I am expecting most to jump ship for that game, since its made by some of the original Eq2 staff.</blockquote>Yet.I'd expect a few to try it out, but like so many other supposed EQ2 killers, it will never live up to the hype, and in the end, will be just another VG, AoC or WAR. Sure, it may be a decent game and have a fair number of players, but the idea that everyone will suddently migrate en masse to a new game is implausible.</blockquote>Same can be said to you. Implausible is not impossible, and with enough push and enough pull, people will leave. And with the game aging, changing some core design philosophies(sp) and planning the slow decay of legacy servers... I see no reason why it wont happen. If the new plan goes into effect like its planned currently then I fully expect it to happen. And even if it doesnt, I wont be around to worry about it as I will not play a F2P RMT style game again. Its just hard watching the one I am currently playing get mutated into a distortion of a successful F2P business model.I think what will happens is people will slowly leave for the next 3-6 months, and once a new game hits more will migrate to at least try it out, and if its good [Removed for Content] would you come back to this?

Whilhelmina

08-03-2010, 06:48 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can't believe the hysteria people are having over A BUTTON on the interface - SO WHAT. No one is making you click on it and no one is making you buy anything. So really stop whining about. It is not a big deal. If people want to buy stuff that is their business. And don't kid yourself - ALL MMO's are heading in this direction.</blockquote>ok, so for all that are saying that SC is not everywhere in the middle of the screen...Here is the welcome screen that can't be turned off in game but only through some file editing:<img src="http://guilhemette.ambroise.free.fr/eq2/images/eq2-welcome.jpg" width="1019" height="753" />En here is my UI... See, the xp bar is minimized and where I always put it since day one 5 years ago: in the middle of my screen. And here is the horse merchant...<img src="http://guilhemette.ambroise.free.fr/eq2/images/eq2-sc2.jpg" /><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>So either people are being skizophrenic and seeing things at sizes that aren't real, or they're over-exagerating to try to make their argument valid. It doesn't work that way, folks, because it isn't that way.The button takes up a portion of your screen that is smaller, once again, than a hotbutton. So let's stop referring to it as something "BIG, GINORMOUS, and HUGE" please? Because it's not.It is tiny. It is inobtrusive. And people are taking offense to it by virtue of its mere presence alone.Reality check people.</blockquote>So... sorry, I don't feel "skizophrenic", I'm not "seeing things" and so on.It is twice bigger than my hotbuttons on my UI, it's in the middle of my screen and each time I open a merchant window I can't help but see Station cash at the bottom of the window and if I'm at a merchand selling station cash items, I'll also see the SC items in the middle of my screen.Sorry, it's big, it's obtrusive and "taking offense to it by virtue of its mere presence alone" too!

Rast

08-03-2010, 07:40 PM

The real point is that SoE (and MMOs in general) need to learn what banks really learned a number of years ago, nickel and diming your customers may make you more money short term, but they do not create favorable and lasting customer relationships.It is a fact that the industry has to go through this stage to grow past it and it is going to suck while they learn. There is a reason that most F2P/RMT games are not high budget games, it is because they know it is a short term affair, so why spend huge dollars that become more difficult to recoup.If this game were on the verge of collapse, I'd understand this, but it isn't. RMT is a short term solution to a long term problem, and as someone who understands, has studied and works in business, these strategies will almost always fail.

Blu

08-03-2010, 09:30 PM

Personally I'll ignore the Marketplace button and/or get a UI with it absent. But the SC items on NPC vendors really bother me, philosophically. They've been going along this path towards a real money transaction model for items in EQ2 all along, but slowly. exchange servers, LoN loot cards, station store, and now real money items on subscription server NPC vendors.I had rather my subscription be raised 3% each year to keep up with inflation than have EQ2 turn into more of an MT-based game. Retroactively applying 3% increases each year since EQ2 started would bring my sub to $17.91 / mo (15 * (1.03)^6 = 17.91). If $3 / mo will solve EQ2's financial issues, please do that instead.As I have stated before, if the game ceases to be about playing the game to advance your character (and in this case more about buying digital bits to make your character better), I will no longer see the point in playing it. The trend I'm seeing toward that end is very disturbing considering I really enjoy playing this game.

ElnAckom

08-03-2010, 10:46 PM

+1 for the last three posts, all spot on.

Dreyco

08-03-2010, 11:20 PM

<cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>The subscription rate has yet to go up in many, many years, while costs have been rising associated with all services and products. This means that while cost has been going up for SOE, your subscription rate has stayed the same; making it harder to pay employees, and do the things that they once did.They have to supplement it somehow: And microtransactions are an easy answer. Being marketting is expensive in the manner that some of their competetors do it, mostly due to having several million subscribers less, making the methods of obtaining more monetary income a little more visible.By the way that people are reacting to this, you would think that they were making the thing a full fourth of your screen, or randomly popping up adverts that say things like "Hey! Look at this station cash item!"As someone else said, the only way that you're likely to get SOE to change anything is to vote with your wallet. However, I would dare anyone to find an MMO that is currently out that does not have microtransactions as another source of revenue. There isn't one, or it's very rare. Even single player services are moving onto this boat. There is no escaping it.The direction of the industry has been set, and it hasn't been set by SOE. SOE is just moving along for the ride to stay afloat, broaden its portfolio, and keep food on the table of its employees.</blockquote>Actually Subs ARE up, as they have said themselves. Only they are not up "enough". And even with subs up, the recent layoffs on top of losing people awhile back that were never replaced, and 2 years worth of SC that they already had in the game they are somehow making less money or not enough to stay afloat? What a joke.</blockquote>I will congratulate you on interpretting my post in your own way. The wrong way. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I meant the sub RATE has not gone up. You're still paying the same cost that you payed back in 2004, if not a bit before. Six years later? We're in a recession? Prices for goods and services (hardware, internet, interest rates) are going through the roof? Investmants aren't happening? Loans aren't happening?Uh huh...What a joke alright.It's not a joke. It's reality.</blockquote>Right sorry, didnt read it correctly on the first pass.But with how little marketing you see, and how little exposure the game gets, its the company's own fault its not doing better. Not the players for not wanting to pay more. This is just another example of them following the lead of other MMO's but doing it wrong and failing.And if you look, they are still making MMO's based on monthly subs just not as many. Now take a look at the F2P market. Swamped with all kinds of crap. So many F2P or RMT style games out now its silly. So NOW SoE decides to jump the band wagon? When the market is flush with the exact same crap they are trying to just now push? Bad business on top of bad business.</blockquote>Your argument falls through again. You know what I see on the boards? People asking for -television- ads. They want the Sham-Wow guy to come onto TV doing EQ2.Do they really know what they're talking about here?EverQuest II has 2% of the subscription of that other game that has TV ads. TWO PERCENT. That's what we call an outlier in statistics, so of course that other company can advertise out the rear-end. It's all they spend their money on. Not on their product. Not on their game. Compare the updates they get to what we get. The investment is solely into marketing.And they've even come out and said that it doesn't work as well as it could. Why even chance it?</blockquote>And actually, check out "Rift". New MMO coming out early next year. No RMT, no F2P. I am expecting most to jump ship for that game, since its made by some of the original Eq2 staff.</blockquote>You don't know that. AION didn't have it at launch either. Then they charged 10 dollars to change your in-game appearance. They aren't saying yes or no.

Dreyco

08-03-2010, 11:28 PM

<cite>Whilhelmina@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can't believe the hysteria people are having over A BUTTON on the interface - SO WHAT. No one is making you click on it and no one is making you buy anything. So really stop whining about. It is not a big deal. If people want to buy stuff that is their business. And don't kid yourself - ALL MMO's are heading in this direction.</blockquote>ok, so for all that are saying that SC is not everywhere in the middle of the screen...Here is the welcome screen that can't be turned off in game but only through some file editing:<img src="http://guilhemette.ambroise.free.fr/eq2/images/eq2-welcome.jpg" width="1019" height="753" />En here is my UI... See, the xp bar is minimized and where I always put it since day one 5 years ago: in the middle of my screen. And here is the horse merchant...<img src="http://guilhemette.ambroise.free.fr/eq2/images/eq2-sc2.jpg" /><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>So either people are being skizophrenic and seeing things at sizes that aren't real, or they're over-exagerating to try to make their argument valid. It doesn't work that way, folks, because it isn't that way.The button takes up a portion of your screen that is smaller, once again, than a hotbutton. So let's stop referring to it as something "BIG, GINORMOUS, and HUGE" please? Because it's not.It is tiny. It is inobtrusive. And people are taking offense to it by virtue of its mere presence alone.Reality check people.</blockquote>So... sorry, I don't feel "skizophrenic", I'm not "seeing things" and so on.It is twice bigger than my hotbuttons on my UI, it's in the middle of my screen and each time I open a merchant window I can't help but see Station cash at the bottom of the window and if I'm at a merchand selling station cash items, I'll also see the SC items in the middle of my screen.Sorry, it's big, it's obtrusive and "taking offense to it by virtue of its mere presence alone" too!</blockquote>You're running on 1024x768 screen resolution?Erm.. alright? I'm sorry? But you're in a very small minority. EVERYTHING is going to be gargantuan on that screen resolution. The screenshots that I posted were on a laptop that is running around 1280x720 screen resolution widescreen, and is five years old. It didn't register as near as large. You apparently also went out of your way to make sure that, not only were you at a mechant, but had the window open, and scrolled down to the very bottom to try to look at the items that they responded to feedback and hid from you at the very bottom of the list.I'd call that grasping straws. But then again, i'd call the argument in general grasping straws that i'm seeing proposed here. Comparing SOE to the banking industry? And Wallstreet? What?

kcirrot

08-04-2010, 12:29 AM

<cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've read the posts here and I just want to comment on this because it illustrates the fundamental mistake you're making. SOE hasn't spent YOUR money to do anything. Your subscription dollars, once you've given them to SOE, belong to SOE. Whether they want to spend them on improving the game, RMT, liquor or prostitutes, it's none of your business.</blockquote>I find this perspective utterly perplexing. It is never a mistake to use every avenue at your disposal to express the will of the customer. The very idea that once your money leaves your pocket and flows to any company or organization, all bets are off, and the only available recourse is to quit and walk away, is to my way of thinking defeatist. It is absolutely my business, and all of yours as well, what SOE does so long as I'm a subscriber.Example.Recently my wife had a car accident, sideswiped a safety bollard in a parking garage just a bit, but enough to cave in the right rocker panel. Cosmetic, but annoying. At the time of impact, her car - small, geometric in shape - suffered enough lateral force to flex the frame of the windshield slightly. Two symmetrical cracks appeared on the windshield, small but enough that over time they would expand, as they did. To cut to the chase, we filed an insurance claim with a company we've both been with for a combined total thirty years. Everything went smoothly - one accident, one claim, one deductible - right up until it came time to settle up. They fixed the rocker panel, but not the windshield, asking for a separate claim to be filed and paid, in direct contravention of what we were told the first time.If I were to take the perspective of "well this is unacceptable, my only recourse is to cancel that they have my money," I'd have had to take the car to another shop, get a new insurance company, and pay an additional $250 to fix the windshield.Unacceptable.You don't have to be a jerk about it; nobody on this thread is jumping up and down screaming like a lunatic that we don't understand RMT as a capitalist reality, that this is "dump stupid bullcrap," or "fine I quit!" To the contrary: Let's have a rational discussion like adults about differences of opinion, and try to better understand the policy rationale behind a decision that is in testing now that will affect our product experience.It is not in a company's best interests to ignore and rebuff customers. Never has been, never will. I don't accept the repeated "business" argument that we're all just cash registers. This isn't a parking garage; it's a customer-based service provision firm we're dealing with, and that means customer opinion matters. The idea that we are all powerless peons beyond our $14.99 a month just doens't fly. I think that Rothgar and Amnerys and Zolt and Gnobrin and Brasse and SmokeJumper and even Smed (the man arguably least connected to We The Players by virtue of his current position) have more respect for the playerbase than that... even a loud loony lizard like me. Someone else said it best: "RMT doesn't keep the lights on; we subscribers do."As subscribers, it is not unreasonable to ask a policymaker at SOE who was party to making the decisions to push RMT high on the list, over other priorities, to explain publicly why they did so. Is that person obligated? No. But it's my right as a subcriber - and yours as well - to calmly and directly ask.</blockquote>Responding to the green - You ignored my point which is that you were acting as if the money you paid SOE for your sub still belonged to you. It doesn't.As to your example, insurance creates corollary obligations on behalf of the insurance company that are not present here. Your example is thus inapposite. Personally, if an insurance company treated me like that, I would seek out a better product after demanding that they fulfill their obligations.Responding to the Orange - Umm... how am I being a jerk by stating an opinion? Only you get to do that? Nothing in my post was inflammatory, but there has been quit a bit of raging on your side of the fence.Responding to the Red - No one is ignoring you. The devs have been responding, you folks just don't like the answers you've been given. They've said: 1) item shops are where MMOs are headed (this is patently true); 2) SOE needs to get with the times. That's why they've added an item shop. It's not Real Money TRADING by the way. We're purchasing value added additions from SOE. RMT is what's on the LiveGamer servers.Finally, as to the underlined portion; in my opinion, it is most unreasonable to ask why item shops were placed before other things on the agenda. Why? Well one, because that's not true. Players always have their pet issue they want to see done. That doesn't mean that the devs can't work on something else at the same time. Second, their marketing strategy is proprietary and they have no obligation to share that on a public forum. This is what I was talking about. You aren't a tax-payer. You're a customer. Ask for whatever you want. But if you feel like SOE owes you're anything, then expect to be disappointed again and again.

Whilhelmina

08-04-2010, 10:12 AM

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>You're running on 1024x768 screen resolution?Erm.. alright? I'm sorry? But you're in a very small minority. EVERYTHING is going to be gargantuan on that screen resolution. The screenshots that I posted were on a laptop that is running around 1280x720 screen resolution widescreen, and is five years old. It didn't register as near as large. You apparently also went out of your way to make sure that, not only were you at a mechant, but had the window open, and scrolled down to the very bottom to try to look at the items that they responded to feedback and hid from you at the very bottom of the list.I'd call that grasping straws. But then again, i'd call the argument in general grasping straws that i'm seeing proposed here. Comparing SOE to the banking industry? And Wallstreet? What?</blockquote>Yes I am.My point is : there was no need to make the SC button twice as large as the other buttons on this new bar and to let it show on the minimized version of the bar.I took the screen on a merchant selling SC items to show what bothers me the most, aka SC items on in game merchants.I understood it doesn't impact your gameplay but it impacts mine. It's all our personnal opinions and we'll never agree.

Barx

08-04-2010, 10:26 AM

<cite>Whilhelmina@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>You're running on 1024x768 screen resolution?Erm.. alright? I'm sorry? But you're in a very small minority. EVERYTHING is going to be gargantuan on that screen resolution. The screenshots that I posted were on a laptop that is running around 1280x720 screen resolution widescreen, and is five years old. It didn't register as near as large. You apparently also went out of your way to make sure that, not only were you at a mechant, but had the window open, and scrolled down to the very bottom to try to look at the items that they responded to feedback and hid from you at the very bottom of the list.I'd call that grasping straws. But then again, i'd call the argument in general grasping straws that i'm seeing proposed here. Comparing SOE to the banking industry? And Wallstreet? What?</blockquote>Yes I am.My point is : there was no need to make the SC button twice as large as the other buttons on this new bar and to let it show on the minimized version of the bar.I took the screen on a merchant selling SC items to show what bothers me the most, aka SC items on in game merchants.I understood it doesn't impact your gameplay but it impacts mine. It's all our personnal opinions and we'll never agree.</blockquote>It's not twice as large. It's exactly as large as the "EQ2" button, and given it's position (and the fact they want it not to hide with the rest of the buttons) it has to be the same size for the bar to be symmetric.

Whilhelmina

08-04-2010, 10:33 AM

But the EQII button is the one for all the options, so it's a major button. All the others little buttons are on this option scrollbar including SC button, so why put the SC button bigger than the others on the bar? Why not the Character button instead which is much more important?

Barx

08-04-2010, 10:47 AM

<cite>Whilhelmina@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>But the EQII button is the one for all the options, so it's a major button. All the others little buttons are on this option scrollbar including SC button, so why put the SC button bigger than the others on the bar? Why not the Character button instead which is much more important?</blockquote>Because SC is important to them as a revenue stream. That's why they want it there opposite the menu button, because they consider it a major button.

Wurm

08-04-2010, 11:13 AM

It has no place on the live servers. On the RMT server it fits in just fine.

Palleon

08-04-2010, 11:17 AM

I have no problem with the button, or with the cash shop. I wouldnt use it, but thats just my personal preference. However, the benefits of the cash shop (and in turn the button) are that SOE get more money from players, which means more money to pay staff, which means more (and better) people to update the game. Our player numbers, whilst not "low" are not "high" either, and a trade off has to be made. This is a business, with share holders. They will be demanding to know why the income from this game is so small in comparison to World of Warcraft - and they in turn will force SOE to make changes. I would much rather they simply added a cash shop and small button than any of the hundreds of terrible other things they could do! Cash shops are the future of MMO's at the moment, and within a year or two you will be hard pushed NOT to find one in a game. Hell, even Blizzard are selling mounts and pets for cash now. Anyway, as I say, more money = a better game, so I am happy to embrace it and do my bit for EverQuest, small SC button and all.

Xill

08-04-2010, 11:25 AM

<cite>Palleon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have no problem with the button, or with the cash shop. I wouldnt use it, but thats just my personal preference. However, the benefits of the cash shop (and in turn the button) are that SOE get more money from players, which means more money to pay staff, which means more (and better) people to update the game. Our player numbers, whilst not "low" are not "high" either, and a trade off has to be made. This is a business, with share holders. They will be demanding to know why the income from this game is so small in comparison to World of Warcraft - and they in turn will force SOE to make changes. I would much rather they simply added a cash shop and small button than any of the hundreds of terrible other things they could do! Cash shops are the future of MMO's at the moment, and within a year or two you will be hard pushed NOT to find one in a game. Hell, even Blizzard are selling mounts and pets for cash now. Anyway, as I say, more money = a better game, so I am happy to embrace it and do my bit for EverQuest, small SC button and all.</blockquote>You would be naive to think the money is going to come back to the game. Eq2 is sony's only profitable game currently, and thus is supporting the others already. The only thing more money is going to do is let them develope eqnext faster. Seriously, if they can milk the current game hard with F2P they wouldnt even need much to keep those people happy. Just more SC stuff to buy. So they dump the profits into the next big thing they are going to release waiting for Free Realms to become profitable. Why would they spend any more then they already do if they can get the F2P market without all the extra effort?

awny

08-04-2010, 11:30 AM

<cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Palleon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have no problem with the button, or with the cash shop. I wouldnt use it, but thats just my personal preference. However, the benefits of the cash shop (and in turn the button) are that SOE get more money from players, which means more money to pay staff, which means more (and better) people to update the game. Our player numbers, whilst not "low" are not "high" either, and a trade off has to be made. This is a business, with share holders. They will be demanding to know why the income from this game is so small in comparison to World of Warcraft - and they in turn will force SOE to make changes. I would much rather they simply added a cash shop and small button than any of the hundreds of terrible other things they could do! Cash shops are the future of MMO's at the moment, and within a year or two you will be hard pushed NOT to find one in a game. Hell, even Blizzard are selling mounts and pets for cash now. Anyway, as I say, more money = a better game, so I am happy to embrace it and do my bit for EverQuest, small SC button and all.</blockquote>You would be naive to think the money is going to come back to the game. Eq2 is sony's only profitable game currently, and thus is supporting the others already. The only thing more money is going to do is let them develope eqnext faster. Seriously, if they can milk the current game hard with F2P they wouldnt even need much to keep those people happy. Just more SC stuff to buy. So they dump the profits into the next big thing they are going to release waiting for Free Realms to become profitable. Why would they spend any more then they already do if they can get the F2P market without all the extra effort?</blockquote>And... you know this how?

Xill

08-04-2010, 11:42 AM

<cite>awnya2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Palleon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have no problem with the button, or with the cash shop. I wouldnt use it, but thats just my personal preference. However, the benefits of the cash shop (and in turn the button) are that SOE get more money from players, which means more money to pay staff, which means more (and better) people to update the game. Our player numbers, whilst not "low" are not "high" either, and a trade off has to be made. This is a business, with share holders. They will be demanding to know why the income from this game is so small in comparison to World of Warcraft - and they in turn will force SOE to make changes. I would much rather they simply added a cash shop and small button than any of the hundreds of terrible other things they could do! Cash shops are the future of MMO's at the moment, and within a year or two you will be hard pushed NOT to find one in a game. Hell, even Blizzard are selling mounts and pets for cash now. Anyway, as I say, more money = a better game, so I am happy to embrace it and do my bit for EverQuest, small SC button and all.</blockquote>You would be naive to think the money is going to come back to the game. Eq2 is sony's only profitable game currently, and thus is supporting the others already. The only thing more money is going to do is let them develope eqnext faster. Seriously, if they can milk the current game hard with F2P they wouldnt even need much to keep those people happy. Just more SC stuff to buy. So they dump the profits into the next big thing they are going to release waiting for Free Realms to become profitable. Why would they spend any more then they already do if they can get the F2P market without all the extra effort?</blockquote>And... you know this how?</blockquote>Free realms is still too young to have made up its development costs. VG has not been profitable for awhile from what I understand. And SWG is in the same boat. The matrix shut down. What else do they have?And regardless, my point stands. I do not see them putting more money into eq2. People said that when SC was first implemented. And you know what? We have longer development times, less content that has more bugs and 3 less dev's on staff... oh and they still need to make more money before they can put some back in the game? How has the game ever survived if it was that bad off that even now its failing with no other games doing great to supplement?

awny

08-04-2010, 11:50 AM

<cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>awnya2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Palleon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have no problem with the button, or with the cash shop. I wouldnt use it, but thats just my personal preference. However, the benefits of the cash shop (and in turn the button) are that SOE get more money from players, which means more money to pay staff, which means more (and better) people to update the game. Our player numbers, whilst not "low" are not "high" either, and a trade off has to be made. This is a business, with share holders. They will be demanding to know why the income from this game is so small in comparison to World of Warcraft - and they in turn will force SOE to make changes. I would much rather they simply added a cash shop and small button than any of the hundreds of terrible other things they could do! Cash shops are the future of MMO's at the moment, and within a year or two you will be hard pushed NOT to find one in a game. Hell, even Blizzard are selling mounts and pets for cash now. Anyway, as I say, more money = a better game, so I am happy to embrace it and do my bit for EverQuest, small SC button and all.</blockquote>You would be naive to think the money is going to come back to the game. Eq2 is sony's only profitable game currently, and thus is supporting the others already. The only thing more money is going to do is let them develope eqnext faster. Seriously, if they can milk the current game hard with F2P they wouldnt even need much to keep those people happy. Just more SC stuff to buy. So they dump the profits into the next big thing they are going to release waiting for Free Realms to become profitable. Why would they spend any more then they already do if they can get the F2P market without all the extra effort?</blockquote>And... you know this how?</blockquote>Free realms is still too young to have made up its development costs. VG has not been profitable for awhile from what I understand. And SWG is in the same boat. The matrix shut down. What else do they have?And regardless, my point stands. I do not see them putting more money into eq2. People said that when SC was first implemented. And you know what? We have longer development times, less content that has more bugs and 3 less dev's on staff... oh and they still need to make more money before they can put some back in the game? How has the game ever survived if it was that bad off that even now its failing with no other games doing great to supplement?</blockquote>What does your response have to do with the topic?Times change, businesses do what they need to do. The SC button is here to stay. Its not that obtrusive... I plan to ignore it.

Xill

08-04-2010, 12:04 PM

<cite>awnya2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>awnya2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xill wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Palleon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have no problem with the button, or with the cash shop. I wouldnt use it, but thats just my personal preference. However, the benefits of the cash shop (and in turn the button) are that SOE get more money from players, which means more money to pay staff, which means more (and better) people to update the game. Our player numbers, whilst not "low" are not "high" either, and a trade off has to be made. This is a business, with share holders. They will be demanding to know why the income from this game is so small in comparison to World of Warcraft - and they in turn will force SOE to make changes. I would much rather they simply added a cash shop and small button than any of the hundreds of terrible other things they could do! Cash shops are the future of MMO's at the moment, and within a year or two you will be hard pushed NOT to find one in a game. Hell, even Blizzard are selling mounts and pets for cash now. Anyway, as I say, more money = a better game, so I am happy to embrace it and do my bit for EverQuest, small SC button and all.</blockquote>You would be naive to think the money is going to come back to the game. Eq2 is sony's only profitable game currently, and thus is supporting the others already. The only thing more money is going to do is let them develope eqnext faster. Seriously, if they can milk the current game hard with F2P they wouldnt even need much to keep those people happy. Just more SC stuff to buy. So they dump the profits into the next big thing they are going to release waiting for Free Realms to become profitable. Why would they spend any more then they already do if they can get the F2P market without all the extra effort?</blockquote>And... you know this how?</blockquote>Free realms is still too young to have made up its development costs. VG has not been profitable for awhile from what I understand. And SWG is in the same boat. The matrix shut down. What else do they have?And regardless, my point stands. I do not see them putting more money into eq2. People said that when SC was first implemented. And you know what? We have longer development times, less content that has more bugs and 3 less dev's on staff... oh and they still need to make more money before they can put some back in the game? How has the game ever survived if it was that bad off that even now its failing with no other games doing great to supplement?</blockquote>What does your response have to do with the topic?Times change, businesses do what they need to do. The SC button is here to stay. Its not that obtrusive... I plan to ignore it.</blockquote>Its amazing how easy it is for some folks to completely disregard anyone else's opinion of something. "Oh you dont like that? TOUGH, becuase I dont care so it must be fine the way it is"Most of the negative feedback I hear, has been attacked by people telling them how they shouldnt care about this, or they need to ignore that. Its not your place to try to tell me what I do and dont care about, or what I should and shouldnt ignore. This isnt feedback for YOU, this is feeback to the dev's based upon the design changes they are implementing. So ignore what I dislike about this, and mind your own business. If you like it, great. Go ahead and tell them that all day as I am sure they love people like you. Makes it easier to screw someone when they are bending over waiting for it.But I very much dislike it and I would appreciate it if you didnt try to marginilize it based upon how you feel. Especially considering how many people really hate these changes.

Iskandar

08-04-2010, 03:46 PM

<cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote> That's why they've added an item shop. It's not Real Money TRADING by the way. We're purchasing value added additions from SOE. RMT is what's on the LiveGamer servers.</blockquote>It could have changed (the industry does change or add new terminology often), but RMT has always stood for Real Money Transaction as far as I am aware. It encompases a wide range of cash transaction models, some of which are much more noticeable or intrusive than others.Yes, the LiveGamer servers are RMT, as SOE charges fees for players to sell their inworld merchandise. Station Cash is also a RMT, as we have to buy the SC points separately from the game itself. LoN is an RMT as well -- although a stand alone game in its own right, it requires the continual purchase of cards to play. All of these contribute financially to SOE beyond what is already paid via subscriptions to access the game itself.From game to game, a Station Cash Marketplace equivalent can go by different names, such as "cash shop" or "item store," but as long as it requires an additional (and typically optional) real money purchase over and beyond that being paid for the game itself, then it's still a Real Money Transaction in a digital world.

kcirrot

08-04-2010, 05:08 PM

<cite>Iskandar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote> That's why they've added an item shop. It's not Real Money TRADING by the way. We're purchasing value added additions from SOE. RMT is what's on the LiveGamer servers.</blockquote>It could have changed (the industry does change or add new terminology often), but RMT has always stood for Real Money Transaction as far as I am aware. It encompases a wide range of cash transaction models, some of which are much more noticeable or intrusive than others.Yes, the LiveGamer servers are RMT, as SOE charges fees for players to sell their inworld merchandise. Station Cash is also a RMT, as we have to buy the SC points separately from the game itself. LoN is an RMT as well -- although a stand alone game in its own right, it requires the continual purchase of cards to play. All of these contribute financially to SOE beyond what is already paid via subscriptions to access the game itself.From game to game, a Station Cash Marketplace equivalent can go by different names, such as "cash shop" or "item store," but as long as it requires an additional (and typically optional) real money purchase over and beyond that being paid for the game itself, then it's still a Real Money Transaction in a digital world.</blockquote>RMT stands for Real Money Trading. Taking out the wingnuts who want to expand the term to fit their agendas, if you look at scholarly research, blogs, and journalists on virtual economies you'll find this term used consistently:<a href="http://virtual-economy.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://virtual-economy.org/</a><a href="http://randolfe.typepad.com/randolfe/2007/01/secondlife_revo.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://randolfe.typepad.com/randolf...dlife_revo.html</a><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958286" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....tract_id=958286</a><a href="http://www.virtualeconomies.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.virtualeconomies.net/</a><a href="http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/14/feature/4086/page/1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/...ure/4086/page/1</a>

Rast

08-04-2010, 05:22 PM

I've always heard it referenced as real money transactions as well.But regardless, semantics aside, the basis of the issue doesn't change as those who have argued against this are referencing real money transactions, cash shops, item malls, what ever term you want to use and their posts have been descriptive of that usage.Regardless it is still a stage the industry has to go through and grow out of because it is not a long term solution and the sooner they realize that, the better everyone will be.

ElnAckom

08-04-2010, 06:22 PM

<cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sesketh@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've read the posts here and I just want to comment on this because it illustrates the fundamental mistake you're making. SOE hasn't spent YOUR money to do anything. Your subscription dollars, once you've given them to SOE, belong to SOE. Whether they want to spend them on improving the game, RMT, liquor or prostitutes, it's none of your business.</blockquote>I find this perspective utterly perplexing. It is never a mistake to use every avenue at your disposal to express the will of the customer. The very idea that once your money leaves your pocket and flows to any company or organization, all bets are off, and the only available recourse is to quit and walk away, is to my way of thinking defeatist. It is absolutely my business, and all of yours as well, what SOE does so long as I'm a subscriber.Example.Recently my wife had a car accident, sideswiped a safety bollard in a parking garage just a bit, but enough to cave in the right rocker panel. Cosmetic, but annoying. At the time of impact, her car - small, geometric in shape - suffered enough lateral force to flex the frame of the windshield slightly. Two symmetrical cracks appeared on the windshield, small but enough that over time they would expand, as they did. To cut to the chase, we filed an insurance claim with a company we've both been with for a combined total thirty years. Everything went smoothly - one accident, one claim, one deductible - right up until it came time to settle up. They fixed the rocker panel, but not the windshield, asking for a separate claim to be filed and paid, in direct contravention of what we were told the first time.If I were to take the perspective of "well this is unacceptable, my only recourse is to cancel that they have my money," I'd have had to take the car to another shop, get a new insurance company, and pay an additional $250 to fix the windshield.Unacceptable.You don't have to be a jerk about it; nobody on this thread is jumping up and down screaming like a lunatic that we don't understand RMT as a capitalist reality, that this is "dump stupid bullcrap," or "fine I quit!" To the contrary: Let's have a rational discussion like adults about differences of opinion, and try to better understand the policy rationale behind a decision that is in testing now that will affect our product experience.It is not in a company's best interests to ignore and rebuff customers. Never has been, never will. I don't accept the repeated "business" argument that we're all just cash registers. This isn't a parking garage; it's a customer-based service provision firm we're dealing with, and that means customer opinion matters. The idea that we are all powerless peons beyond our $14.99 a month just doens't fly. I think that Rothgar and Amnerys and Zolt and Gnobrin and Brasse and SmokeJumper and even Smed (the man arguably least connected to We The Players by virtue of his current position) have more respect for the playerbase than that... even a loud loony lizard like me. Someone else said it best: "RMT doesn't keep the lights on; we subscribers do."As subscribers, it is not unreasonable to ask a policymaker at SOE who was party to making the decisions to push RMT high on the list, over other priorities, to explain publicly why they did so. Is that person obligated? No. But it's my right as a subcriber - and yours as well - to calmly and directly ask.</blockquote>Responding to the green - You ignored my point which is that you were acting as if the money you paid SOE for your sub still belonged to you. It doesn't.As to your example, insurance creates corollary obligations on behalf of the insurance company that are not present here. Your example is thus inapposite. Personally, if an insurance company treated me like that, I would seek out a better product after demanding that they fulfill their obligations.Responding to the Orange - Umm... how am I being a jerk by stating an opinion? Only you get to do that? Nothing in my post was inflammatory, but there has been quit a bit of raging on your side of the fence.Responding to the Red - No one is ignoring you. The devs have been responding, you folks just don't like the answers you've been given. They've said: 1) item shops are where MMOs are headed (this is patently true); 2) SOE needs to get with the times. That's why they've added an item shop. It's not Real Money TRADING by the way. We're purchasing value added additions from SOE. RMT is what's on the LiveGamer servers.Finally, as to the underlined portion; in my opinion, it is most unreasonable to ask why item shops were placed before other things on the agenda. Why? Well one, because that's not true. Players always have their pet issue they want to see done. That doesn't mean that the devs can't work on something else at the same time. Second, their marketing strategy is proprietary and they have no obligation to share that on a public forum. This is what I was talking about. You aren't a tax-payer. You're a customer. Ask for whatever you want. But if you feel like SOE owes you're anything, then expect to be disappointed again and again.</blockquote>KC, I'm not ignoring your point; I'm refuting it. I categorically disagree with your analysis on the red-colored text. Just because legal tender has changed hands doesn't absolve the recipient entity of certain ethical obligations or of making good on common-sense customer service principles. I specifically said that the insurance company example wasn't perfect but the central tenet remains: I'm suggesting there is an obligation on SOE's part. It's not legal, but I believe it's implicit. You're welcome to disagree, and clearly you do. I believe that if you only ever hold organizations with which you conduct transactions to bare minimum requirements, you'll end up with less quality than if you believe good business includes good communication before, during, and after the transaction. You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree with your position that SOE's responsibility ends at the time they take my money... or yours. Companies that value their customers as more than simple transactions, I believe, do better in the long run.As to the yellow passage, I was not at all suggesting you are being a jerk, and am sorry if it came across that way. I was speaking generally. More exact language would have been "one does not have to be a jerk about it." I stated that no one, including you, is being hyperbolic in this particular discussion, and that's precisely the necessary discourse. If you consider me to be "raging," that's fine. I certainly am passionate about the fact that I believe a company's obligations to its customers extends beyond the point I pay them my cash and walk out the door. I believe that's a business principle, an ethical imperative, and a common-sense way of dealing with people. There are several people who have vocally disagreed with that position, including you, and that's totally fine. Everyone is welcome to their civilly-expressed opinion, and I'd hope they're logical and principled. I don't think I'm on some lunatic bender by suggesting that customers hold companies accountable using more than simply cancellation. Clearly some people think that's the only option. I respectfully disagree.As for the red passage, it absolutely is Real Money Trading. I appreciate your passion, but you're incorrect on this fact.And you're right: I don't like the answers given elsewhere. When SOE says in one place "we're not doing this" and in another instance says "this is a fact of life," I want a better, more public explanation. I'm not going to get it. I accept that. I have never, ever suggested that SOE has any legal or EULA-binding obligation, and I've been vociferous about my awareness on that.I don't have to like it, and I am absolutely entitled to be disappointed with SOE, and say so.It is clear that RMT has been placed higher on the agenda that other things by virtue of the fact that it's happening before other things, like some bug fixes or balancing issues. Clearly RMT is taking place right now, and other content will come later. It's folly to suggest the chronology isn't factual when it's right here to look at. What you're suggesting, I think, is that it's both understandable and justifiable. And that's fine. But there are plenty of people here who aren't happy about RMT as a concept, and we're all completely within our right to express that, and to ask for clarification from our service provider.None of us are guaranteed an answer. Many of those who disagree with us say we're nuts for even asking, and we're sure to be disappointed. So be it. It's our prerogative to express our desires, even if we fully expect them to go unfulfilled. I am not of the ilk that believes doing the right thing is a waste of time, no matter the ultimate outcome.So long as SOE provides a forum where we believe that the developers will read, listen, consider, and respond, all of us - on all sides of the issue - are at liberty to apply all rational pressure to get the answers we want. I don't have a pet issue. What I have a problem with is the allocation of limited resources - a limitation that has been specifically pointed out, in this forum, by SOE staff - to a concept that may or may not be a sufficient revenue substitute.Let me spell out my issue for those who are still following this, and it may underscore my point.I want to know the percentage of EQ2 net profit currently attributable to RMT.I want to know the percentage of EQ2 net profit attributable to subscriptions.I want to know the projected or targeted improved net profit attributable to RMT following this change.Let's say RMT currently accounts for 5% of EQ2 profit, and the target is 10%. My point is, and has been throughout this discussion, that +5% net profit is better made up and sustained by improving subscription rates than by RMT, as subscriptions are more stable and have more longevity if you continue to provide an excellent product.On the other hand, let's say RMT currently accounts for 15% of EQ2 profit, and the projection is for that to jump to 40%. If I were shown those numbers, I would shut up and leave this issue alone, because those are numbers that make sense to anybody who can count. You can't argue with that because - as I discussed with Daesin - I certainly do understand that SOE is a business.I'm not asking for specific monetary statements... just a general percentage-based concept of what we're talking about. Is RMT so critical at this juncture to secure the longevity of the EQ2 platform that it warrants developing RMT over development of content that attracts and maintains subscribers?None of us - NONE of us - knows the answer to that question. That's why I'd like a more thorough explanation.I don't expect it. I'm not guaranteed it. But I'm willing, able, and allowed to ask. Yes, it's probably bad business and likely totally against company policy to make earnings-related statements like that on this forum. But it doesn't mean it's not best for a company to do exactly that: Tell us what's going on so we can make an informed decision. I would be more inclined to remain a subscriber (which I remain at this time) were SOE to "man up" and tell us more of what's going on. I also find it implausible a generalized statement like this would somehow undermine corporate profitability or commercial integrity. Just my opinion.Again, apologies on the "jerk" thing; I was speaking generally and absolutely not about you specifically. I, of all people, will be the staunchest advocate for transparency and the right for anyone to speak out on any topic.