Please don't do that. It's a PITA to reply to, basically requires the other person to do the same thing to you, and it almost always leads to straw man arguments somewhere down the line. I would also prefer you don't insult my intelligence by acting like I don't know what micro-transactions are or their significance to the gaming scene when I mention them by name and talk about what they include. Nothing about what I said suggested that I didn't know what they are, and I take offense at your implication that I don't. I play plenty of games that do that, and a few that switched over to doing that. I'm entirely aware of the number of games that works via micro-transactions. I just don't think it's a system that entirely works that well. Take Champions Online (I may be thinking of something else. I do believe Champions did this or something similar, at least), with required micro-transactions to further customize your character, unlock additional content, and generally improve you game experience. Though they're not the best example of this as they still had a subscription system that as far as I can tell, which gave you most of the content that f2p players would have to either buy or work around a more limited version of (including customer support!).Mefris Elmek wrote:Tons of Quote Sniping.
I always felt that the micro-transaction model only worked if your character didn't really matter, like in Team Fortress 2. In a RPG, I find that it not only weakens my own experience if I have to buy things to customize my character or get the whole game experience, but if other people can't do the same. Even if I did put down the money to customize my character, I would feel like the odd one out around everyone who couldn't do that when they're limited to a smaller pool of items, that often just aren't as cool as the stuff you can buy. In a MMO, your game experience can rely on other people having just as great of an experience as you are. A subscription based model would allow people to start off on more similar footing, allowing them to advance through the game as they please instead of being restricted by certain features being locked. I would also see this as one of the more divisive issues among the community if the game did this. Finally, the appeal of replaying the game with a different character would be considerably lessened due to this system. You would be more likely to cling onto a character if you have actually money invested into it. This can be seen as both a good and bad thing, I guess, but a lot of content can be entirely missed out on if you don't try different characters and play styles.
Looking into this more, I find that payment systems are one of those things that you should have more of, instead of fewer or even just one. Going back to Champions, it allowed you to get around most of the micro-transactions by paying a subscription fee. This does make the game one of those with an "elite members" or whatever you want to call it system, which is one option that I listed as less appealing before. However, I find it more appealing in conjunction with the inclusion of a f2p and micro-transactions system. At the end of the day, the f2p model had a minimal effect on those willing to pay the fee to play the game, allowed more players to get into the game, and simply gave them more ways to make money. It even had a lifetime subscription option for those who only wanted to pay once. Or take Eve Online, which allows you to pay the game subscription with in-game currency. This rewards players for playing the game (by allowing them to continue to play the game), and is just an additional option for those looking for one. This isn't a case where there is one right option, but many (and they're more correct when you have multiple options). People prefer different payment methods, and allowing more into a game is more likely to benefit both your player-base and the people making the game. By allowing more options, people are more likely to put money down on the option that appeals to them personally. If their preferred payment system isn't there, they'll be less likely to pay money for your game. For the developers and publishers, the benefit is obvious. A more active user-base and more opportunities to make money.
So if they only use one system, I would still prefer for it to be subscription based (which is the one that they're thankfully doing). However, instead of dedicating to one option, why not do several? I see that system working out for the best.
Basically if you are rich in game you will never have to worry about the subscription ever again.
