I have been playing MMOGs literally for decades, so this type of discussion is nothing new, it can be found in any game forum, so I'll just add m2cw once, unsure if my comments are worth even that :-).
I recall these types of game models beginning rather innocuously, with some games offering additional content or decor, none of which impacted gameplay; simply a cute way to make one's buildings stand out or similar cosmetics.
Soon though, this was expanded upon, allowing a player to develop more quickly, but again without directly influencing day-to-day gameplay; a player could reach level X faster by paying for these advancements, but when he got to level X he was no better or worse off than any other player at that level, he just got there quicker.
Finally, with games coming online allowing for microtransactions that impacted gameplay, and the "micro" part was soon forgotten, the point was reached where a credit card outweighed other considerations.
Obviously, many players are not content with this model, and I include myself, but in my opinion applying a bit of perspective is useful:
- I find it difficult to call coiners cheats in a game that not only allows but encourages monetary transactions.
- Also, though I'm not a particular fan of the pay-to-win format (to put it mildly), I certainly can't claim ignorance; I knew what I signed up for :-).
- I am vaguely saddened by the fact that I will never make it far up the ranking ladder, but to be honest, I wouldn't have done so in a free game either; with 1 to 2 hours gameplay per day, I am no match for all those folks committed 24/7.
- On the up-side, I take gleeful pleasure in not only seeing masses of cavalry die at my doorstep, but also in the assurance that my opponent may need to up his card limit.
- Finally, any odd victories I might chalk up for myself, I do so knowing that these I can attribute to any small amount of wits, strategic and tactical thinking I was able to muster.
An often heard argument is that game models such as this one would be more acceptable if monetary transactions, or the results of these, were somehow capped. Obviously, at least to me, this would indeed be the case, at least from the perspective of a non-coining player, but this balance will be dictated by the business model of the foundry behind a game, where, as always and similar to all commercial products, such decisions are based on what the market will bear (no news to any parent who has spent untold sums on Nike footwear or the children's addiction to Pokemon :-).
A dialogue with game developers is always useful (such as in this forum), but too often in my opinion, these discussions are more of a venting of grievances, perhaps therapeutic in their own way, but not conducive to a civil discussion (present company excluded, of course :-).
So there. Feel free to transfer the 2 cents worth now, or not :-).
No need to sign it, don't worry.
