What happens if you sell 10,000 20 dollar backpacks?
As usual, the recent issues with Allods cash shop are not just about Allods. They are about a general batch of issues that North American gamers are going to face, but issues that can quickly go away with understanding on both sides or that can stick around and happen with each new game because of ignorance and lack of knowledge.
But, let’s keep it simple. Really simple.
Allods just released another “press release” addressing some of the concerns of the community on pricing. Essentially, they are going to wait 4 weeks until they make a decision, and are asking the players to jot down their issues with the shop in an official forum post. They even posted something that seemed to come directly in answer to something I said: “We are not sitting and waiting just to see how many dollars we’re going to make over the next four weeks.”
Well, actually, they are sitting back and making money over the next 4 weeks, they are not refusing any money right now. I could log in and buy 100 backpacks if I wanted to.
Of course, they meant to say that they are not just going to sit there making money, but that they will also listen to suggestions about pricing for the future.
Now, as a consumer, you are supposed to be bright enough to know when someone is being a politician, and when someone is being honest and straight-forward. The main issue I have with the community response is pretty much the same issue that I always have with the community: try thinking as the developer does. Try, for just a moment, to step outside of your shoes and into the shoes of the developer.
If it makes you feel better, do this in order to gain information, and not to be all touchy feely with the “enemy.”
So, what do you do as a developer if you open up your cash shop and some of the controversial items actually sell? What do you do when the rough rule of “the few buy so that the many play for free” proves itself? Do you pull back a bit, adjusting prices so that many can buy many cheaper items, or do you keep the prices as they are, in the hopes that the few will continue to do what they will always do?
Also, the players that are complaining about the prices need to be very, very honest with themselves and ask
1) Are any players actually buying these backpacks (backpacks referencing to any cash shop item in any game)?
2) Is it unexpected that, even when a price might generally be talked about as “too high”, the developer is content with selling almost anything while they can, especially during this critical testing time?
3) Is it possible that the cash shop has never been released officially, and the prices were simply almost filler, during this BETA TEST? There is no rule that says they cannot test the systems involved with the shop with OPTIONAL ITEMS, and there is no rule that says that the option to make a few bucks is out-of-the-question, just because it is during a BETA. ( Two people told me that as soon as money was introduced, the test status was null and void. What if they called the funds “donations”? Would that be “acceptable”? )
Of course, those that complain will not do this. What they will do is complain about the prices for these very optional items, forgetting the fact that these items might actually be selling and that it is very normal for high-priced items to sell possibly even more-so due to exclusivity, and will tend to forget that the game is (as in the case of Earth Eternal also) IN A TESTING PHASE.
Of course, this could be seen as an excuse for the developers. But, my point is that the developers in this new cash shop market need no excuses. They put an item out there and put a price on it. Either it sells or not, let the market be their teacher. There is no “price gouging” in almost every one of the free games I have ever seen, but a mature adult will understand that sometimes the developers do price what might seem as high and might possibly enjoy the fact that many players actually pay the price. That’s no sin, that’s an attempt to make some money, just like the artist that hopes for a good amount on one of his works, and just like any one of us would do if we asked a price and people paid it!
I love that during this time, players are suddenly setting “average” amounts that would be acceptable to pay.
“I will pay 15-20 dollars a month, but anything more would be ridiculous!”
“I will pay equal to a sub, because the sub price is the measuring stick of all quality!”
“I will pay nothing at all, after all…cash shop games are FREE!”
Yet none of these complainers seem to understand that, no matter what price is good for them, someone will always be good with paying more. That’s how these games work. A few pay a lot so the rest can play for free. Is that wrong? Is that player that paid the 20 dollars for the back pack wrong for having more money than you? It’s so convenient to look for someone to yell at, when the price doesn’t seem to fit into our personal budget guidelines.
Maybe I’m right, when I say “Let me spend 100 dollars a year, spread over the year.” That’s what I spent on Mabinogi last year…comes out to 8 bucks a month. Am I wrong?
And, for the record, I don’t think that the developers are being sneaky or under-handed. They are being more communicative than many PTP developers out there! But understand that while the “protests have not gone un-noticed”, they are hopefully selling as many of these silly 20 dollar batches of pixels as they can.
They need to make money. Even free to play games are not free to make.
Don’t like the price? Move on. Get out of the way of the customer that wants one, and wait for the price to drop.
To illustrate the exactly wrong way to do things, let me quote from someone elses blog:
“I’m tellin ya people…if you don’t make some noise here, it will continue. Fortunately, the gamer crowd is starting to get it. We took it up the ass with the horse, now we’re just providing them with the lube.”
If you make statements like this, and are a grown man (as the author is, I know him) then you should really have a look in the mirror. This isn’t some kind of revolution against a corrupt government. This is isn’t some kind of “rape”, I assure you. This is not some kind of “pulling the wool over our eyes” or some kind of “price gouging from the Man.”
The above quote is from that guy that you see standing in the tire shop, pacing around red-faced. When you ask him what’s wrong, he says “The prices are too high.” When you ask him why he doesn’t go somewhere else, he looks at you and says “but that will send the wrong message!”
That’s the guy that you push out of the way so you can place your order. That’s the kind of Glenbeck nutty type chatter that ruins actual conversations about pricing. And that’s the majority of the stuff that I have been reading.
Don’t be that guy. The price will come down, eventually. There is no item, virtual or otherwise, that will always stay at a price if the market doesn’t like it. Go outside and have smoke and remember that this is a video game we are talking about, or walk on to the next store.
Beau
I could not have said it better. Bravo!
At heart, yes, this makes sense. That said, I think a fair dose of the outrage is based in the *change* of prices (they went up by an order of magnitude in testing) and how they compare to reported prices for the same things in Russia.
Of course, there’s always the purists who want doom and gloom to befall the business model because they think subscriptions are more ethically pure or some other such religious drivel. These are easy to ignore, albeit far too common.
I maintain that the game itself is good, but the pricing is ill-advised. We’ll see where the dust settles, but I really do think they could have handled this better by not changing the prices as they did and by having a better spread of products at different price points. They have some variety, but it’s not really between comparable products. In other words, if they had offered a couple of different backpacks at different prices, the sting may have been softened.
Theres a couple issues here. First you are getting your information from gaming blogs. That’s what they report on, so why should they not get up in arms about an obvious asshat move by a gaming dev/publisher? I dont go to Spouse aggro, Hardcore Casual, KTR, ect, to read about the mirkiness of world politics.
Second, as close to finished as this game was, to overnight jack prices up 20X and then make abrupt class and gameplay changes that require those over-priced items to even participate in end game PVE/PVP, besides being an obvious money grab maneuver, is just a stupid buzz killing move, like reaching out to an aquaintance who was about to give you money and poking him in the eye.
So yeah gaming blogs and gamers in general have every right to loudly exclaim there opinion of one of the stupidest business decisions in a long time from a dev/publisher that was about to launch a highly anticipated MMO. People had money in hand ready to lay it down on Allods. Not only did they lose money but word of mouth that would have lead to even more money.
My only issue here is when you say:
“When you ask him what’s wrong, he says “The prices are too high.” When you ask him why he doesn’t go somewhere else, he looks at you and says “but that will send the wrong message!”
It’s basically boils down to the fact that he actually LIKE the game. Gamers are known for constantly game hopping in search of their MMO and Allods appears to be an MMORPG that they could see themselves playing for a decent amount of time and even possibly invest in the cash shop. But the prices are so high, that they’d have to drop the equivalent of a Year Subscription fee into the cash shop in order to actually use it.
Of course it’s not entirely true, and it’s still possible to play for Free (PvE for Free at least). But there’s 2 type of people who complain here:
1: Those who just entered the Free To Play market, barely know how it works.
2: The players on a budget, ready to put a few bucks into the game as long as the prices are reasonable, because they’re on a budget.
But both type of people know that someone is ready to put 8000$ into the Cash Shop, there’s several exemple of this such as Runes Of Magic. But the problem is not about those “rich” players, the issue is that they cannot afford that much to be “competitive” and that it defeats the purpose of actually playing for Free. Yes it’s Free To Play, but it’s Pay To Compete too.
I believe someone calculated the price of a fully Cash Shop-geared player it was around 42,000. For exemple, a level 9 Rune (runes boosts your damage by 5% and defense by 5%) cost $250 and a level 10 Rune cost 600$. I believe you need to “rune” your item from 1 to 10 (rather than buy a level 10 rune to do the job). 42,000$, we all know some players will pay that much, but we just can’t afford it ourselves.
This is not about players being able to afford the items, to me. It is about players being hurt that someone else might be able to.
You can play the game, as they did in all the betas (which it is still in) and you can enjoy the game (as was done in all the betas) without any of the items. They are completely optional, period. Admitted by players AND by the developer, you can do just fine without said items.
The tire shop works as an example because you can exist without one particular tire shop. Tire shops, like backpacks or pvp items, can vary in price range (in Allods they range from free to very costly) and so you have a choice as to where to get them.
And please, please stop saying “to compete.” There is no rule or forced goal of “competing” with other players. There is no perma-death, there is no full loot in this game. There is out-performing someone, sure, but that is a goal that can only have value if the individual wants it to have value. Who says that the cash shop must cater to those that value, above all goals, the ability to kill more than be killed?
I didn’t value that goal in Darkfall, for example, and many people didn’t seem to understand how I could not value it. It’s simple: they don’t value role-play, but that is a valued goal to me. So, who is right? None of us. And it is not up to the game to place more value on one goal or the other. It might be an optional goal, to be “good” or “competitive” at PvP, but exactly what qualifies as good? Also, there will always be someone better than you, cash-shop or not. PvP’ers will always cry foul when they are bested.
Copper,
I am not only getting information from gaming blogs, trust me. I am getting some examples of dumb things to say from gaming blogs, but not all information.
Beau
/sigh
I’ll never understand why seemingly smart people will allow themselves to be exploited. Lowering the price doesn’t change the fact that you are paying for specific design decisions the developer is making to harass you into spending money.
All you are doing with this post is negotiating the price that you are willing to be exploited.
It’s the model that’s flawed, not the pricing. The disturbing part for me is that as Microtransactions continue to be successful, we’ll just see them implemented more and more often in other games.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t want to play a game where the developer is actively working against me to get me to spend money.
If that makes me an angry man standing at the tire store arguing about the principle of the thing — then so be it.
You are completely ignoring the fact (and come on man, you above all else should know this, even taking into consideration your offbeat gaming style) that once a F2P goes live, many of the updates are geared towards sending players to the cash shop. The first Allods patch (perfume change) is an obvious example, so continuing to repeat “but beta was fun without the CS, so no issue here!” is foolish.
Same for the whole “all CS items are optional” line. Of course it’s technically possible to hit 40 without spending a dime, but just how much fun is it to play a game where each quest requires 5 different items to go into your tiny bag, or to wait 2 hours for a debuff to wear off before you can go out PvPing or PvEing again? If we judged a F2P game like Allods or Atlantica with the assumption that you won’t spend a dime, they are garbage in terms of game design. Is that really how we should judge the ’standout’ titles of the F2P world?
Sid:
So, how do you explain paying 50 dollars for the box, 15 dollars a month (forced) and 50 bucks for expansions? Are those NOT ways for the developer to “get your money?” There is no “honorable” way to give them your cash. I don’t care if you spend 150 bucks on a collectors edition, or on subsciptions, or on expansions…you are still giving them your cash.
You don’t understand the cash-shop…it is just a sub that is broken into smaller parts. Yet, even better, is that it allows for players to play that might not have the money. This is good. More players=good. Remember, this is not something like paying taxes or paying for medical care. This is paying for entertainment, however you choose to. Do you go to the movies and stomp around because they want to “harass you into spending money” on popcorn and cokes? After all, maybe that should be included in the price!
Swallow your pride, man. More of these cash shops are coming, and being implemented. Either way, you are still going to give them your cash.
Syn:
You still speak from inexperience. Also, you speak from the point of view of someone that has a certain opinion on what “fun” is. Staring you in the face are the millions (actually, by all estimates, many more millions than that pay for their sub) of players that seem to have a great time either paying nothing at all, paying a comfortable amount, or paying tons.
Go and play about 15 other of the successful FTP games. I have done it, and I know that your idea of fun is not everyone’s. The established FTP market has proven (as I have pointed out a million times, and as the developers have admitted) that most players do not use the cash shops. How do they DO IT? lol Must be magic.
The key difference is that I’m paying for content, not to avoid in-game obstacles placed in my progression path.
I have no problems with paying for specific USAGE of content. Even premium content like specific Dungeons.
My issue is with a system that actively encourages the developer to place roadblocks in your path that you need to pay to avoid.
Nasty debuff? Buy a perfume. Not enough people buying perfume? Make the debuff last longer with a bigger penalty.
Leveling too slow? Buy an XP potion. Not enough people buying potions? Increase hitpoints on mobs to slow speed at which things get killed.
Not enough bad space? Buy a bigger bag. Not enough people buying bags? Make things take up more space.
Travel to slow? Buy a mount. Not enough people buying mounts? Make travel even slower.
I don’t object to people making money in unconventional ways. I object to getting exploited while they do it.
Sid:
OK, so you think that being “forced” to buy a mount, by only allowing mounts to be sold in the cash shop, is to be “exploited?” So how is that any different in being “forced” to even pay for basic access (a sub.) See, you are simply placing your values on the purchases, allowing your values to dictate what is an exploit and what is not. That’s fine, go for it. What I am saying is that, whatever your opinion, there is no difference in paying for a sub and paying for a horse.
Either way, you are paying for access to content.
Is a mount NOT content? Is a better bag NOT content?
You’re not going to see it, that’s fine. Go on and divide your purchases into “exploits” and into “legitimate purchases.” That’s up to you as an individual. But when we both hand over the same amount of cash for access to content, there is absolutely no difference in what we are doing.
EDIT: And please, for the sake of proper argument, do not use silly examples like “make travel slower.” Name a single game that has forced people to “travel slower.” No game developer will change travel speed, or make travel more inconvenient. If anything, travel becomes easier over time. That’s obvious in most games.
The main difference between a Subscription fee and a F2P Cash Shop usage is that, everyone is on equal ground at all levels in a subscription game, compared to many F2P games who will, as sid67 said, put roadblocks in your path to make you pay. And when the amount you pay dictates how strong you are, there’s a problem for the other groups of players.
And yes in the case of Allods Online, we CANNOT avoid the subject of being COMPETITIVE because Allods End-game is PvP, in other words, the player that has bought the most strength enhancing item will win. (Remember the runes I mentionned? Increases both Damage and Defense by 5% each and stacks up to 10 times per item).
As for “Make Travel Slower”, there’s an easy way to make travel slower which is to make expansions increasing the game’s size, players will walk for a longer period of time. You should know, that’s the main incentive to buy Mounts in Mabinogi especially when you walk across the world of Iria. It’s probably the only major incentive to use Cash Shop in Mabinogi though and some Mounts can also carry up to 2 players but still, that’s how you make Slower Travel.
Can’t you see the difference between buying something that is a solution to an artificial obstacle and buying access to new areas?
In one scenario, the dev is purposefully making the game harder. In the other, you are getting some new thing to explore.
As I wrote above, all you are doing is negotiating the price for which you are willing to deal with these obstacles. Whereas, I question the merit of having the obstacles in the first place.
It occurred to me last night that I think a lot of this difference in opinion boils down to trust. To support the MT model, you need to have a lot of trust and faith that your MMO developer isn’t going to exploit you badly.
The more you trust them not to exploit you, the more accepting you are going to be of paying small incremental costs for progression.
And if you think about it, why are you and others really upset with Allods? Did they violate your trust by having prices that were too high and implementing patch changes that were exploitive?
Call me cynical, but I don’t trust MMO developers much to do the right thing. I think it’s too easy for them to be abuse players with this model. Which is why it’s scary to see more and more developers talk about adopting MT and ‘value added services’ to the mix.
I’d rather you (and other players) look at this whole Allods debacle as a wake-up call that these devs aren’t worthy of such trust.
PS- By slower travel, I should have said, make things more difficult to reach. Obviously, they aren’t going slow your walking speed down. But adding a nasty NPC town in the middle of a road that you need to travel around certainly makes it take longer.
You are *not* buying content by paying a subscription. You are paying for access to content for a chunk of time. You buy content when you buy a Guild Wars box, a DDO content pack or passes in Wizard 101.
If anything, sub games are *more* abusive of players because they need to extend the time players are paying. Hence, the grind. Also, you’re paying for something that you may not even be able to use if real life gets in the way. When you buy content in a F2P/microtransaction game, you can play it whenever you have the chance.
Subs are great value for some, but not for others. Other business models acknowledge this and open up the chance to let others in and perhaps earn money from them.
I have no problems with paying for specific USAGE of content. Even premium content like specific Dungeons.
@Tesh: I was pretty specific about USAGE. And I don’t have an issue with a DDO content pack that includes specific dungeons, or a Guild Wars box.
Where I draw the line is when the ‘content’ you are purchasing is just a means to avoid progression and/or obstacles the dev creates for you.
The idea that MT is some form of a la cart pricing is a myth. In an MT model, you pay to AVOID content — not play it.
That’s distinctly different than a ‘box sale’, ‘pay-by-the-hour’ or ‘pay-for-dungeon’ model.
And by the by, if you want to argue semantics, you technically never buy content but the license to use content (i.e. usage).
Irenor:
I didn’t say that you could be as “competitive” as the next guy if you spent nothing. Again, you are missing my point. Feeling as though you are being “competitive” might mean something to you, and nothing to someone else. You mean to tell me that, if you are to lose a fight with another player, that you are suddenly kicked from the game and your account is deleted?
Of course not. You wake up and try again.
Just like the player that, in the subscription world, can buy two or three accounts (as happens in every major sub mmo out there) used money to gain an advantage over you. After all, if you feel that “winning” at PvP is the ultimate goal (instead of the attempt, which is the true goal of any MMO) then you will feel that a player that gains a server first (as an example) somehow has an advantage. Yet, I bet you have no problems with players that buy several accounts. Or, I should say, the bulk of the MMO community has no problems with this. You don’t see people posting “stop dual accounts NOW!”
I understand what he meant by “slowing down travel” but again, it is an optional luxury. Luxury items are not needed, but wanted. It is a shame if players cannot afford them, but if they cannot afford the sub then they certainly do not get a free sub do they?
I give up trying to explain it, though. When it gets down to it, paying money into a developers bank doesn’t depend upon the source or the intent of the person paying. There is no arguing, for sure, that one of you might consider 15 dollars a month as “affordable” while I consider it, in a lot of cases “a total ripoff.” Same applies to an expensive cash shop item, useful or not. You might consider the price too high, but not me. And just as with the subscription that I feel is a ripoff, you have the right to claim it as “affordable.”
Sid:
How many cash shop games have you played? You pay to “avoid” content? Are you seriously trying to say that those cute little pink dresses that sell for so much in cash-shop games, are some attempt for players to avoid content? Either you are stuck in some world where all players only worry about combat effectiveness, or you seriously have never seen the selling power of fashion items, housing items and other similar cash shop biggies.
And how many F2P games are entirely financed by pretty pink dresses? The only ones I can think of aren’t MMOs (Farmville, Second Life).
@Beau
What you said is completly true, as long as a game’s End-Game is not PvP-focused like Allods. Sure you can do the PvE just fine without the obvious boosts the shop offers but PvP plays the major part of the end-game and while you may enjoy that end-game, your chance of survival versus someone who has bought those Strenght Enhancing Items is very slim and that’s one of the major reason why I keep bringing the “Competitive” crap again and again. (Especially since Allods Online is not a Skill-based game)
As for players who buy alts account in P2P MMOs, in the end, everyone will have the same gear, same potions, etc. Yes his gear may have better stats but you’ll be able to achieve those stats too. And that’s the main difference here.
—
That said, one of gPotato’s option that I would like to see is to allow players to sell those cash shop items they bought to other players using in-game currency. Both Mabinogi (Potions, Feathers, Dyes, etc) and Dungeon Fighter (Avatars) does this and it works really well, especially in the case of Dungeon Fighter where those Avatar items gives a somewhat powerfull boost to the player, allowing non-cash shop users to gain access to these items is a very good way to keep all players happy regardless of the price of the items.
@Sid67
There are several MMOs which, will they offer game enhancing items, does imbalance the users and non-users, and instead, simply make the progression faster.
The best exemple is possibly MapleStory. The cash shop offers only Fluff items, XP potions, and Pets that will pick up the items for you but that’s it.
Oups my bad, meant to say “DOESN’T IMBALANCE”
OH man, you really want me to make a list?
First of all, I didn’t say “financed”, I simply pointed out the incredible selling power of these items. Second of all, not all cash-shop games are only paid for with the cash shop…there are freemium games like Wizard 101, or sub games like EQ2 with a very strong vcash-shop attached.
Games that have a very strong fashion cash-shop content: Free Realms, Mabinogi, DOMO, EQ2 (they have a cash shop that sells fashion very well, according to SOE) the TCG’s from SOE (loot cards can pull in lots of money, player pay for booster packs) Wizard 101, Florensia, Runes of Magic (it’s housing items are crazy popular) Second Life (you buy in game currency with real money, and buy in game clothes with that money)….I can go on and on, especially with enough time to look through my games folder.
I will assure you that I can find you more F2P/freemium/sub games with cash-shops than you could ever know! lol Trust me, I know what I am talking about. And for the record, “pink dresses” has always been my code word (look at my old posts about this stuff) for, what players like Syn call “fluffy rainbow candy land” stuff. Hell, even Allods has an appearance only shop area…that’s the area that is still under construction but in earlier betas you could see and try on the clothes.
I am in no way debating that PvP items are not popular cash shop items. But, as with the fact that MOST MMOs are not PvP-based, at least the same percentage of items in the bulk of cash shops are not pvp or even combat related.
Beau,
There is no denying that you make a very strong argument for MT practices in MMOs and most of what you are saying is based on logical and very well worded information. However, I, as gamer, do not always feel logical when it comes to money and I believe that many share this sentiment as well. So I can tell you that what Allods is doing doesn’t stand well with me, so they can take their MT prices and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine. I will not be playing Allods now or in the future, because there are plenty of other games like that on the market and for much better price and that do not require “arm and a leg” to compete either.
I would rather sub to Dark Fall, and I do not have a good opinion about that game either for different reasons, than invest any time into Allods and its cesspit of MT “goodness”.
Correct, Irenor, or at least the cash shop is filled mostly with fluffy stuff… http://maplestory.nexon.net/WZ.ASPX?PART=/CashShop/ItemGallery
…and how many players (or accounts at least) does Maplestory have? If you google it, look at the very first thing that comes up: “Join the Online Adventure with over 50 million players worldwide! Free-to-Play, Free-to-Download! Latest News and more!”
Either someone on here will say “but they are lying!” or will try to dismiss that number. Take away however many of those players you want and say that they are “just free players.” Still, you will be left with probably millions more that pay something than most PTP games have as players.
Luk:
I am not sure what that has to do with the discussion. I have always said that this cash shop is a choice, and you have made your choice. If you feel that being forced to pay 15 dollars a month (not saying that “forced” is good or bad, but just is) is somehow better than avoiding paying the same or more for optional items, then so be it.
Just remember that when you pay that 15 dollars a month, you really need to make sure you get your money’s worth. Maybe you will, maybe you won’t. Again, you make the decision and that decision has no bearing whatsoever on what I feel is “worth it.”
According to Wikipedia there’s over 100 millions accounts worldwide for MapleStory. I also remember the ads that was shown on MMORPG.com and other various site with “Over 92 millions players worldwide”.
While the story doesn’t say how many of these accounts are active, MapleStory NA does have around 10 servers for the game so that says a lot. Definitively a success for the F2P market.
Oh, I don’t underestimate the power of people wanting to buy fluffy items. But you can’t honestly tell me that outside of a handful of games where the point IS the fluffy thing (i.e. Second Life) that the hottest selling item in the cash shop is the pink dress and not the XP potion.
And it’s the XP potion, and all other things that impact MMO progression, that I’m talking about when I say they only exist because of the roadblocks the dev is putting up.
If what you are buying is NOT cosmetic, but has some function in the game, then that’s where we start to enter the danger zone of the dev possibly exploiting you.
Which brings me back to my key point that all you are really doing here with Allods is negotiating the price at which you willingly allow yourself to be exploited.
I’m just not interested in negotiating that at any cost.
And along these lines, here is another reason to not like the MT model. The best price for the Dev is not the price the price most people can afford, but the price that nets them the most profit.
For example, if 1000 people can afford $1, the dev nets $1000. But if 500 people can afford $5, the dev nets $2500. Sound great?
What about the 500 people who were willing to pay $1?
Don’t kid yourself. That’s what is happening with Allods Online right now. They are trying to see how many people are willing to pay the higher price. And everyone not at that threshold is (rightfully) pissed off about it.
My suggestion in the Allods CS feedback thread, was to make the current 20$ bag apply to every character on an account at once (a great value for alt-addicts) and then add another cheaper ‘One-Use Bag’ for like 4$ that people who don’t make a ton of alts can buy for a single character at a time.
That way, gPotato can have a 20$ bag, people who’ve bought the bag can feel like they got a great deal, and folks who want cheaper bags get that too.
Since when aren’t gaming blogs about how bloggers feel about the games they’re playing? And it’s not $20 for a bag. It’s $20 for 6 more spaces in a bag. This almost comes off as if, only people who agree with the prices, which are people who actually wouldn’t have anything to say, are the only ones who should voice an opinion.
Being highly vocal works. Boycotts work. There is a precedent for both. Whether or not it will have any impact on this situation remains to be seen. We don’t know if it will and you certainly don’t know that it won’t.
It’s just that you personally, don’t feel this is a big deal. And that is your opinion, while bloggers who do think this is a deal are voicing theirs. It’s sort of how the whole blogging thing works.
We know we can simply not play. That is obvious. It’s like saying why complain or discuss anything you don’t like about any game?
Say:
I didn’t say that boycotts don’t work, and I never suggested that you should not voice your opinion. And my issue has never been about discussing anything about anything. I don’t want to re-write everything I have already said. Either you get my point or not, and either you are the type to think that using certain language makes any some kind of difference or not.
I am basing everything I am saying off of the proof of years of playing these games. If you think this situation is unique or will play itself out uniquely, then I think that you are wrong. No offense, of course!
I can’t think that forcing most of the player base to choose between paying nothing or paying prices that seem grossly inflated compared to prices in comparable products is the best strategy. Making consumables much more important at the same time that you raise the prices by an order of magnitude also doesn’t seem like the wisest PR move to me.
You are correct, they can set their prices any how they please and some loony bird or ten will pony up…which means it was a decent value to someone. If their are enough rich loony birds to make the game economically viable to keep running at the current prices, then they will have succeeded as a business (and MMOs are primarily businesses). However, I seriously doubt the current prices will do that for them, and waiting a solid month to even consider lowering them seems like a pretty foolish decision to me. By then they hype for the game will have died down a lot and they will likely have sacrificed a lot of momentum in the marketplace.
Yeebo:
Good points, but it is my guess that they would have had changes coming anyway. Think about it: the beta will be “over” around then, they would have a release with new items and a more complete cash shop. I am not saying that they set these prices high only because of the testing status, but changes were due anyhow.
It’ll be interesting to see, but from my experience even much less advertised/buzzed FTP’s do really well. Many people here have never even heard of Mabinogi or Maplestory, yet the games are huge. We’ll see, though, it is interesting to growing pains in action.
Oh I betting they are going to change the prices and I believe it will be faster than it would have been, them just waiting on data to show that few players were “buying” their nonsense. The difference being that there is a large negative buzz now from blogger that had been giving the game a positive spin. They can do damage control on their forums. They can do spin-doctoring with stories on websites but they can’t control bloggers, which is going to be their biggest visible issue. I have new referrals from all over the place, linking my point of view back go guild forums and other bloggers who had been considering this game, and I don’t count myself among the widely read. This has spread like wildfire and they will be forced to address it. Of that, I am certain. But you know what they say about the spread of bad news versus good news…
@sid: You just gained a reader.
@beau: I often think “oh I wonder what Beau’s take on this is” when MMO news breaks, so you my boy. But I’m just not feeling your argument on this one.
Here’s my take as simply as I can put it. The game of Allods with the bare necessities (bag space, being able to play after dying, etc, as defined by me for me) is a game I want to play. The game of Allods without those things is not. And the first game is too expensive for me. Currently anyway. I’m still very positive about it and I look forward to watching the next couple weeks.
Bud:
I like the bare necessities example. Hopefully after they “fix” things you will be into it again.
Well in a way I’m on your side currently, because I am still playing. My deal is “play until all that stuff gets in the way of having fun”, and it hasn’t yet. But me and my friends haven’t run into FoD, and our bag space is kinda holding up for now. Worst case scenario, we take a break and come back when prices are tolerable. Or maybe that’s second worst. Worst is they never drop the prices low enough for us to enjoy the game and we miss out on a really AAA title.
Seriously, let’s all take a small break and recognize what an awesome game Allods is, right?
“Don’t kid yourself. That’s what is happening with Allods Online right now. They are trying to see how many people are willing to pay the higher price. And everyone not at that threshold is (rightfully) pissed off about it.”
@sid
I don’t get the “rightfully” part of this.
If private jets were priced at $100 apiece, I could afford one. As it is, rich people have them and I don’t. Should I be “rightfully” angry about that?
I was right with you in your arguments about purposefully putting obstacles in a player’s way, and then putting items in the cash shop to get around those obstacles.
But you lost me with that last comment. Games are businesses, and exist to make money. Nobody has a right to play them. If the price point of playing is higher than you’re willing to pay, then so be it. You can be disappointed the price isn’t lower, but you don’t get to be “rightfully” angry about it. That implies there is some entitlement to play the game. There isn’t.
@Patrick
I guess to that I’d go back to what I said above, that bag space and being able to play the game after death are necessary to enjoying Allods, whereas your jet is just a luxury item in… what’s the equivalent to Allods in your analogy? Life?
I think a more appropriate analogy would be something like a city’s public transportation. If it was so expensive that most people couldn’t afford it, they’d be pretty pissed. Even though they could technically walk wherever they need to go, that’d be a major inconvenience. And then they’d move.
I agree with what you’ve posted here. It could be that gPotato set the initial prices as high as they did so as to let the market approval/disapproval set the price over time to maximize profits. I can’t imagine many people will purchase from the shop with its current prices. As a result, the prices will come down. As they do, some people will return to the game and more will make purchases. Eventually, the number of people making purchases from the cash shop and the prices of the items in the cash shop will reach an equilibrium. It wouldn’t happen this way if gPotato had started out by setting their prices low out the gate. Heck, someone should (if they haven’t already) develop software that does this automatically based on preset acceptible parameters and sell it to gPotato and all the other cash shop MMOs out there (I only play one, and rarely).
Also, it is my opinion that players, for whatever reason, are generally timid when it come to voting with their wallets. I’d guess that a large number of those complaining right now on the various blogs or forums are still playing Allods regularly. I don’t get that.
I agree with you on this one Beau. The market will adjust itself to a point that is good for the game, it has to.
I understand why people are unhappy with the current prices in the Allods CS, they are from the perspective of the majority of active forum goers too high. Raging about it really will solve nothing if people are buying items. It is ok for Gpotato to charge whatever they want for these things (I feel like Gordon Gekko). It is also ok for consumers not to pay them.
“But Dezyne Fear of Death requires you to buy perfume to enjoy end game.”
To this I say, Allods is not a requirement, but the beauty of it being free to play is that you don’t have to maintain a sub to hop back in once the item shop fits your preference.
There are people who are pissed simply at the concept of having to use the CS to ‘fully enjoy’ the endgame in the first place, the price is irrelevant to them. The Perfumes could be made 10 cents each, and they’d still be angry because they resent the very idea that a ‘Free to Play’ game would require purchases to fully enjoy the level cap.
A lot of the hysteria in the forums and wild rumors flying around are so overblown that I don’t know what to believe — are the future patches REALLY as game-killing as people are saying, or is it just more nerdrage? I’m waiting until I get to the endgame myself to see how all those ‘nerfs’ play out before making any final judgements. Right now I’m enjoying the game, and I’m not paying a thing, so it’s a great value for me. =P