Jennifer Nardieu
   |
Posted - 2011.06.29 23:08:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jennifer Nardieu on 29/06/2011 23:09:51
 Originally by: Yuki 0nna
For me, the most telling stat in the EA presentation was the actual spending data on the forum posters, collectively and individually, who protested so violently.
People here in EVE's forums protest, rightly, that P2W items in EVE could easily damage the "sandbox" economy, changing EVE, which has never been a simple "space shooter game," beyond recognition.
But when it comes right down to it, how many forum posters actually play and most enjoy EVE as if it were just a space shooter game; if veterans, having long ago trained skills and amassed fortunes for ships and equipment, or if new, having bought more powerful ships and equipment with PLEX?
The future of EVE (and MMOS in general) is ultimately a question whether people come to experience a virtual reality, in the case of EVE a virtual Sci Fi universe, or come to win, ruthlessly at any cost, a competitive shooter game. Sadly, if you look around, listen to most posters and players in EVE, there's little doubt most are here to win at any cost, by any means. (E.g., the last Alliance Tournament.)
What the stats in the EA presentation tell us is that we need only look to ourselves and our peers to know why the micro-transaction model is so appealing to CCP and the rest of the gaming industry.
Plex != P2W.
Plex lets you buy currently existing items within the player economy.
It does not buy you SP's, it does not buy you anything that cannot be compared to another item. Even Estamel can be bought/found by other players without requiring the purchase of plex.
This is not what I have a problem with as a protestor against RMT.
What I have a problem with is circumventing game mechanics and offering modules/abilities that cannot be found elsewhere in game. You know...actually paying to win.
I do also have a problem with the fact that I already pay ú15 a month to play this game, if it was F2P and everything beyond a rookie ship required purchases then so be it, but that would completely change EVE and it wouldn't be the same, you would lose (and gain from new people) subscriptions.
Paying ú15 a month to play the game then possibly having my game spoilt because there are unattainable items or unfair mechanisms such as: buying faction standings without requiring tags, buying soverignty, buying tech moons, buying previously in-game items that have been removed, buying skill point buckets or even just having things like monocles persist after a podding.
Is what I am against.
EA may well have a F2P business model that works really well, however EVE is not a F2P game, CCP are trying to shoehorn it into a F2P business model. DUST is F2P, use that as your testbed, not us.
|