PDA

View Full Version : Microtransaction Ideas


NobleIre
02-18-2011, 03:31 PM
First of all i'd like to say.. please don't flame this about how 'you oh so hate microtransactions'. This is a topic about what types of microtransaction ideas you wouldn't mind (or might even like) to see, not about whether or not you like these transactions. If you hate them all, then I suggest you just don't post here.
*Feel free to critique other people's suggestions, however.

With that out of the way - what would you like to see, or wouldn't mind seeing the devs charging real money for? I don't believe they have said that they would, definitively, use microtransactions (so don't have a heart attack), but if they did.. what would you suggest they charge for?

Here are some of my ideas:

Stronghold relocation: Paying real life money for an instant relocation of your base and army within that base. I would not, however, support this unless there was also a method for moving your base using in-game resources instead of money.

Banner symbols: I wouldn't mind them charging for some particularly awesome banner icons to customize our banners with.

Small, long-term buffs: By this, I mean paying to include a buff that isn't very significant.. but lasts for a long time. (Say a month). This could be like a 1% increase to loot, or a 5% faster troop recruitment time, 10% faster army march speed, etc. Basically, something that is designed to be pleasant, but not enough to give someone a significant advantage. The appeal would be in that these buffs last a long time - thus the 'cumulative' benefit is still significant.

Special unit designs: By this, I mean being able to purchase something that would change the 'model' of a specific type of unit into a cooler-looking version. No statistical or practical benefit, just a change to the look of the unit. For instance: perhaps making a berserker have big spikey armor, etc.

arthas242
02-18-2011, 03:50 PM
horriable idea, basically you are saying people who pay $$$$ should be stronger

and not real point in special unit designs when they are already in as upgrades

Dracus
02-19-2011, 12:09 AM
Microtransaction ideas could work only IF they were purely cosmetic items you could buy. Say banners, types of walls, a castle plan or even go as far as to say the weapons on your army look different however have the same stats.

Cosmetic items in my opinion would be fine but anything that gives you an edge over another player in my opinion is bad. If you want to make money this way I'd rather p2p a monthly fee then have to deal with the stupid item mall idea.

LiTos456
02-19-2011, 02:40 PM
horriable idea, basically you are saying people who pay $$$$ should be stronger

I honestly don't see any logic in your post.

Basically, something that is designed to be pleasant, but not enough to give someone a significant advantage. The appeal would be in that these buffs last a long time - thus the 'cumulative' benefit is still significant.

Read carefully next time, mate.

NobleIre
02-19-2011, 02:40 PM
horriable idea, basically you are saying people who pay $$$$ should be stronger

and not real point in special unit designs when they are already in as upgrades

Thank you for actually reading my post and bothering to heed my request. (sarcasm) Also - it's Horrible*


In general, I agree with you Dracus. Microtransactions should generally not provide any sort of tactic (and definitely not substantial) advantage. They should general be for aesthetic or convenience purposes.

I do, however, believe in items of convenience. (for instance, a purchase that allows you to insta-move your base to another location without in-game cost). It wouldn't make you powerful, it is just a matter of convenience.

Any other ideas for things that could be included and charged for? I'm not necessarily saying that they will or even should have microtransactions - i'm just trying to come up with some ideas that are generally 'acceptable' for them, in case they do.

arthas242
02-19-2011, 03:20 PM
Banner symbols: I wouldn't mind them charging for some particularly awesome banner icons to customize our banners with.

Small, long-term buffs: By this, I mean paying to include a buff that isn't very significant.. but lasts for a long time. (Say a month). This could be like a 1% increase to loot, or a 5% faster troop recruitment time, 10% faster army march speed, etc. Basically, something that is designed to be pleasant, but not enough to give someone a significant advantage. The appeal would be in that these buffs last a long time - thus the 'cumulative' benefit is still significant.



U are talking about buying banners that give buffs with Cash, thats basically saying the more you pay the stronger you are

SOOOOO..... where's the flaw in my logic?

because seriously i will be let down by any game that did this regardless how big the buff is, you should never be stronger because you paid more $$$$. you should be good because u have built up stuff and played the game.

NobleIre
02-19-2011, 04:46 PM
You posted saying that my entire post was a 'horrible idea' based on a single portion of the post. That, arthas, is what doesn't make sense. Ofcourse, with more effort with a spell checker, your post would be easier to read and understand. I agree with you, however, that most people will not like the idea of any sort of statistical buff, regardless of how frivolous it is.

I, however, believe that there are methods for doing such that it is practical and yet does not change the balance of the game. For instance - moving speed of an army. It could be enhanced in a way that is convenient, but which does not add any real advantage to the army. (For instance, say it takes 10 minutes for your army to march from your castle to an enemy castle. Some people might be willing to pay for a buff that would reduce that to 8.5 minutes [because they are impatient]. Now, that extra 1.5 minutes isn't likely to change your fate in the battle.)

I will add, however, that any buffs which are available through a market should certainly be available in some manner in the game. For instance, perhaps as a spell or rarer item find.

Neutral884nz
02-19-2011, 06:32 PM
As long as everything you can buy with RL money is cosmetic im all for it, but if it is anything that gives people an advantage over other players.. no thanks, it just ruins the game.

Paying to customize my soldiers to look unique would be alright, im one who loves customization, changing the style of your castle or being able to buy new weapons / armor for your hero would be nice, as long as it is all only for looks.

darklegends8
02-19-2011, 09:24 PM
This game has to get money somewhere, and I'd rather pay for an advantage than pay just to be able to play. Which is why I always play F2P games and not P2P.

Tolbby
02-19-2011, 11:13 PM
NO. Any game that gives a slight bonus to those who pay VS those who want to spend some extra free time is completely unbalanced. Even the slight 5% movement increasement is huge, cause something normal taking only a day would then take roughly over 22 hours. That 2 ohur difference could mean the absolute difference between success and defeat, giving P2P a clear unfair advantage.

YES. There could be those extra unimportant features that are an added bonus for paying with money. League of Legends is Free to Play, and they're very successful even though the things to spend the money on are only skins to change the look of characters. They pretty much do absolutely nothing, but it's awesome to have a different looking character compared to everyone else.

darklegends8
02-19-2011, 11:33 PM
NO. Any game that gives a slight bonus to those who pay VS those who want to spend some extra free time is completely unbalanced. Even the slight 5% movement increasement is huge, cause something normal taking only a day would then take roughly over 22 hours. That 2 ohur difference could mean the absolute difference between success and defeat, giving P2P a clear unfair advantage.

YES. There could be those extra unimportant features that are an added bonus for paying with money. League of Legends is Free to Play, and they're very successful even though the things to spend the money on are only skins to change the look of characters. They pretty much do absolutely nothing, but it's awesome to have a different looking character compared to everyone else.

You've listed one game that does okay without offering an advantage to non paying players. Most other F2P games offer some kind of advantage to paying customers. As a company striving to succeed, which path do you think they would want to take to survive in the competitive MMO business?

arthas242
02-20-2011, 08:55 AM
Imagine Starcraft 2 with Buffs for cash!

it would destroy the game


Imagine Zerg with 10% movement speed, OMG can u say super fast zerglings? even 5% attack speed would be a god buff. Orc's supposeably match zerg in that they play the number's game so that is why i used zerg from starcraft 2 to match them. but seriously if you think buying buffs is balanced they you don't even deserve to be PLAYING IN THE BETA.

hell, any game that go beyond selling *Looks of stuff* really doesn't deserve to be even made because once you make it unbalanced to the one guy with more $$$ the guy who isn't paying $$$ is going to leave

arthas242
02-20-2011, 08:58 AM
You've listed one game that does okay without offering an advantage to non paying players. Most other F2P games offer some kind of advantage to paying customers. As a company striving to succeed, which path do you think they would want to take to survive in the competitive MMO business?

yeah and did you noticed all those F2P one's that u get buffs for paying more a chinese made and great failure MMO's?

look at wow, lotr, war, AoC, starwars G. These are one of the best mmo's out there and none of them sell item's to make you more powerful or buffs.

Now they do have server/race/faction changes, but those are not game play changing mechanic's.

even most of the unpopulated one's don't sell buff's for cash like Dark Fall, and so on....


Also Lotr's is FTP and they are making more money just selling game content and service's then they were before whcih i am fine with, but selling in game buffs will quickly destroy a game

NobleIre
02-20-2011, 12:02 PM
Imagine Starcraft 2 with Buffs for cash!

it would destroy the game


Imagine Zerg with 10% movement speed, OMG can u say super fast zerglings? even 5% attack speed would be a god buff. Orc's supposeably match zerg in that they play the number's game so that is why i used zerg from starcraft 2 to match them. but seriously if you think buying buffs is balanced they you don't even deserve to be PLAYING IN THE BETA.

hell, any game that go beyond selling *Looks of stuff* really doesn't deserve to be even made because once you make it unbalanced to the one guy with more $$$ the guy who isn't paying $$$ is going to leave

You're basing your view on speculation and comparisons that are not parallel. Giving troops an 'on the map/traveling' speed increase is not the same as giving them a movement increase in-battle.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

I was asking if you all had any other good ideas for things that would be fine for them to sell - this wasn't supposed to be a discussion on 'whether or not microtrans is okay and when'. I mean real, specific ideas like those listed above - for other things they could provide customizations for, etc.

darklegends8
02-20-2011, 11:01 PM
yeah and did you noticed all those F2P one's that u get buffs for paying more a chinese made and great failure MMO's?

look at wow, lotr, war, AoC, starwars G. These are one of the best mmo's out there and none of them sell item's to make you more powerful or buffs.

Now they do have server/race/faction changes, but those are not game play changing mechanic's.

even most of the unpopulated one's don't sell buff's for cash like Dark Fall, and so on....


Also Lotr's is FTP and they are making more money just selling game content and service's then they were before whcih i am fine with, but selling in game buffs will quickly destroy a game

Actually Korean made, most mmos these days come from Korea. Can you learn to use better grammar? Reading your sentences is really hurtful to my eyes. Let's take a look at some F2P games that do give an advantage to paying customers and are successful:
Maple Story, Ace Online, Vindictus, Soldier Front, Combat Arms, Fiesta, Navy Field and there's plenty of others.

I'd go to mmosite and copy down all of the ones that give paying players an advantage, but I think you know how to read. Also, a lot of the games you listed are either P2P like WoW, or CD games that require you to buy it, like Starcraft II, which costs 60$, and quite frankly, I'm not going to pay 60$ to play Dawn of Fantasy.

So if you want Dawn of Fantasy to be free, it should give an advantage to paying customers, or chances are, it's not going to last too long on this market.

Kaos90
02-22-2011, 02:16 AM
I think that they should have micro transactions but they should be based on pure aesthetics like skins and such.

Guibaz
02-22-2011, 04:44 AM
I prefer a montly fee but a PIN number card (adds X quantity of cash) ll be ok too.
micro transactions maybe ...

YES =)
Skins
Guild addons
quest itens
general map mov speed
+ race type
exclusive access to new areas
Relocate position
faction change
race change
server change

NO =/
+ gold
+ wood
+ food
+ unit boost

Framer
02-22-2011, 05:52 AM
in my personal experience so have microtransaction never been a good idea simply for the reson that the ppl that have mony to waste will always be on top of the person that do not feel like spending big bucks in a game to get a advantage towards the other players and this will quickly make the game boring for those players and they will therfor leave

Wesso
02-22-2011, 06:43 AM
Why would a person make a thread about paying for the game after the original purchase? Do you actually want to pay for something every month?

Im also wondering why transactions are needed after the initial purchase, im pretty sure wow is making massive profits off its monthly fee, if i was ever to play wow i would expect new content every month, cos im paying every month. Warcraft 3 and starcraft 2 dont have monthly fees, why dont they and why does wow? and more importantly why does dawn of fantasy need these payments?

Dolas
02-22-2011, 07:01 AM
Why would a person make a thread about paying for the game after the original purchase? Do you actually want to pay for something every month?

Im also wondering why transactions are needed after the initial purchase, im pretty sure wow is making massive profits off its monthly fee, if i was ever to play wow i would expect new content every month, cos im paying every month. Warcraft 3 and starcraft 2 dont have monthly fees, why dont they and why does wow? and more importantly why does dawn of fantasy need these payments?


You do realize all the games you mentioned are from the same company? Wow makes enough profit for Blizzard that they could sell games for the next year for free and it wouldn't even dent their pockets. However, Warcraft 3 and starcraft 2 are rts games, they are not mmos. DoF is an mmorts and is Reverie Studio's first game, so they need someway to make money, because since it is a persistent world, they need to have updates and patches to keep the game fun and entertaining, whereas Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 do not need patches to still make money, they made money when the players bought the game (even though Blizzard still comes out with patches for these games because they like to keep everything updated, even though they do not make any money off of it).

NobleIre
02-22-2011, 09:03 AM
Why would a person make a thread about paying for the game after the original purchase? Do you actually want to pay for something every month?

Im also wondering why transactions are needed after the initial purchase, im pretty sure wow is making massive profits off its monthly fee, if i was ever to play wow i would expect new content every month, cos im paying every month. Warcraft 3 and starcraft 2 dont have monthly fees, why dont they and why does wow? and more importantly why does dawn of fantasy need these payments?

Because I realize the very real possibility of them charging microtrans and I would rather us recommend things we wouldn't mind paying for, rather than them coming up with them without our suggestions. That's why. Why would you bother posting something that is off-topic and completely against what I asked you not to post in the beginning of the topic?

Guibaz: exclusive access to new areas could be cool.. though I would prefer it if these were smaller areas that didn't really have any benefit over the others. Perhaps giving you instant access to a single area where all those who pay for access to it can fight over stuff in a concentrated area. (So the benefit is having ready, intense action - rather than better resources or anything like that.)

WoOpin
02-22-2011, 11:43 AM
I think giving perks that are not overpowered and give a huge advantage is best. Soon as you go buy to win lots of people get put off.

NobleIre
02-22-2011, 12:44 PM
Oh I had another idea:

Pay for some sort of graphical flare or other show-off trait for your army. For instance, Perhaps your troops gain some sort of elemental war-cry that flashes lightning at the beginning of the battle. Or perhaps an effect that makes the map/ground look cracked after your army marches over it (and dissapears soon after), etc. These would do nothing but look cool, mind you.

Dracus
02-22-2011, 03:20 PM
Oh I had another idea:

Pay for some sort of graphical flare or other show-off trait for your army. For instance, Perhaps your troops gain some sort of elemental war-cry that flashes lightning at the beginning of the battle. Or perhaps an effect that makes the map/ground look cracked after your army marches over it (and dissapears soon after), etc. These would do nothing but look cool, mind you.

This is the most viable way of micro transactions without messing with balancing issues. I suggested this a few posts back. If you want to have a mall that does not turn away certain gamers you should simply put in cosmetic changes. Some people might find them worthless but for most people looking awesome or differentiating themselves from the populace is worth a couple of bucks.

darklegends8
02-23-2011, 01:12 AM
The Rich being on top of the poor is how it is for a lot of games, and since they're still on the market, clearly it works.

Now for those of you who say that it will put off players who aren't willing to spend money, I ask you, why should they, the company, care? If you're not paying, what incentive do they have to serve you? They're a business, their objective is to make money.

The only reason they would have to serve the non paying player base is to maintain a good image to the public, and if they're getting enough revenue from the paying players, what difference does it make if they're despised?

If they want to rake in the money, it's not going to be with flashy banners or aesthetics, it's going to be paid advantages. Sure, maybe I'll pay for one or two aesthetics if that's what's available, but if a company really wanted my money, they'd go down the pay for advantage route.

Oh and for those of you who say one customer won't make a difference, I very much doubt I'm the only type of gamer who supports this and my nice stack of game cards totaling over 1000$ plus more spent on credit cards begs to differ.

Kaos90
02-23-2011, 01:42 AM
As long as any micro transactions they might or will make do not affect player skill I think most people will be fine with it.

Dolas
02-23-2011, 06:17 AM
The Rich being on top of the poor is how it is for a lot of games, and since they're still on the market, clearly it works.

Now for those of you who say that it will put off players who aren't willing to spend money, I ask you, why should they, the company, care? If you're not paying, what incentive do they have to serve you? They're a business, their objective is to make money.

The only reason they would have to serve the non paying player base is to maintain a good image to the public, and if they're getting enough revenue from the paying players, what difference does it make if they're despised?

If they want to rake in the money, it's not going to be with flashy banners or aesthetics, it's going to be paid advantages. Sure, maybe I'll pay for one or two aesthetics if that's what's available, but if a company really wanted my money, they'd go down the pay for advantage route.

Oh and for those of you who say one customer won't make a difference, I very much doubt I'm the only type of gamer who supports this and my nice stack of game cards totaling over 1000$ plus more spent on credit cards begs to differ.

Everyone who plays this game is going to have to pay something, because unlike a lot of ftp mmos, we have to buy the box at a retail store. This is taken from the faq:

Q: How much will Dawn of Fantasy cost?
A: No specifics have been released, but the price will be comparable to that of other current PC RTS titles.

So we are already paying around $40-$50 for this already, and I know quite a few people who would love to buy this game, but if the micro-transactions suck then most of them wont even bother. Reverie will lose money from players who would buy the game because the micro-transactions give an advantage. Whats the point in buying a game when it is clearly unfair to play the main online mode without dishing out more money? Contrary to what you believe, everyone who buys this game is a paying customer because we did pay for the box. So the company should care how they do this microtransaction idea because if they do it poorly they WILL lose money. But honestly, if DoF sells really well, they don't even need to do micro transactions to make a profit, Guild Wars proves that.

NobleIre
02-23-2011, 12:13 PM
Please stop trying to turn this into a debate about microtransactions, not only is it off-topic I started the topic by asking you NOT to.. AND, I believe there is already a topic for that.

darklegends8
02-24-2011, 03:17 AM
Everyone who plays this game is going to have to pay something, because unlike a lot of ftp mmos, we have to buy the box at a retail store. This is taken from the faq:

Q: How much will Dawn of Fantasy cost?
A: No specifics have been released, but the price will be comparable to that of other current PC RTS titles.

So we are already paying around $40-$50 for this already, and I know quite a few people who would love to buy this game, but if the micro-transactions suck then most of them wont even bother. Reverie will lose money from players who would buy the game because the micro-transactions give an advantage. Whats the point in buying a game when it is clearly unfair to play the main online mode without dishing out more money? Contrary to what you believe, everyone who buys this game is a paying customer because we did pay for the box. So the company should care how they do this microtransaction idea because if they do it poorly they WILL lose money. But honestly, if DoF sells really well, they don't even need to do micro transactions to make a profit, Guild Wars proves that.

Hm For some reason I missed that. In that case it doesn't really matter to me because I'm against pretty much any business model besides F2P + Item Mall + Paid Advantages. Pay to play sucks more, and retail sucks the most. I concede the point, I very much doubt that Reverie will get a penny out of me. Unless the beta dazzles me if I happen to get in, I very much doubt I'll pay for it.

nraheim6554mac
02-24-2011, 04:12 PM
Oh I had another idea:

Pay for some sort of graphical flare or other show-off trait for your army. For instance, Perhaps your troops gain some sort of elemental war-cry that flashes lightning at the beginning of the battle. Or perhaps an effect that makes the map/ground look cracked after your army marches over it (and dissapears soon after), etc. These would do nothing but look cool, mind you.

That's actually a really cool idea, and another idea for the microtransactions is the ability to decorate your city the way you want it to be, like painting it, putting banners on it, engraving your army's/city's name on the walls and so on.

LiTos456
02-24-2011, 10:16 PM
Please stop trying to turn this into a debate about microtransactions, not only is it off-topic I started the topic by asking you NOT to.. AND, I believe there is already a topic for that.

Listen to the OP folks. If he asked you not to start a debate here, then please avoid one. This is a discussion thread for ideas and suggestions, so keep it at that please.

NobleIre
02-25-2011, 09:54 AM
Thank you LiTos, I just don't want this turning into an argument over whether or not to have microtrans. I just noticed I put this in the wrong section of the forum :o :o

That's actually a really cool idea, and another idea for the microtransactions is the ability to decorate your city the way you want it to be, like painting it, putting banners on it, engraving your army's/city's name on the walls and so on.

That could be cool, paid city upgrades to add certain spiffier 'decorative' aspects to your stronghold. Perhaps some sort of art or crest effects on the walls, some cooler-looking gates or towers.

TheTower
02-27-2011, 03:46 AM
Some people tend to overreact upon hearing the "microtransactions" word. So, even if it will be all decorative, one should very carefully explain it all, in big red letters.

Squiglypig
02-27-2011, 07:38 AM
I'm one of those who'd rather have the microtransactions only have a cosmetic effect.

Or at least only have an effect as in increased resource gathering for a while. Any direct advantage on the battlefield (like a spell or some new type of unit) wouldn't be very well accepted by me.

LiTos456
02-27-2011, 09:11 AM
I just noticed I put this in the wrong section of the forum :o :o

Good call, moved.

NobleIre
03-01-2011, 08:51 AM
Thanks again!

Another idea - to change attack animations. For instance, changing the color of archers 'fire shot' (for those that have such abilities) so that it looks like some sort of magical flame. (green fire, sparkling, etc.)

Anyone else have any specific, real ideas?

Puppeteer
03-01-2011, 12:13 PM
That's actually a really cool idea, and another idea for the microtransactions is the ability to decorate your city the way you want it to be, like painting it, putting banners on it, engraving your army's/city's name on the walls and so on.

I love this idea. The trouble is, if you want to include the ability to design your own emblems/flags, no matter how much I would like that, think how that might get abused! Tricky situation (I believe there is a thread(s) on it quite a way back, but oh well).

NobleIre
03-01-2011, 03:00 PM
Yeah, that's an issue just like with normal banners. However, they could still offer some special 'preset' customizations. Special types of banners and symbols that could be added to the stronghold for a small cost.

Another idea: more music! Surely the game will have a preset selection of music.. but this music might get a bit dull after a while. How about a purchase that activates a new selection of background music in addition to the original set that comes with the game?

ImmoralAtheist
03-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Well, I don't like microtransactions and especially pay to win models just destroys the entire game (I thought better of stronghold kingdoms). Microtransactions for purely cosmetic stuff is accepted, however what I think could work.
Non payers are on a sort of "unlimited" trial account. Some features are removed (quite small in the beginning), and they could have a reduced resource production (no less than 80% I think). The other is premium account, where you get full benefits from the game. So one fair monthly price, and if there's several world, it should apply to several worlds, not be locked to one (maybe a small increase in costs for higher number of worlds you can join). It's important the price is fair, and this gives you the full content of the game. Everyone who pays this is on an even playing field. Those who aren't, are a bit reduced but it's still fully playable. Maybe later ther will be some features that are reserved for payers, like special leadership roles and similar.

NobleIre
03-09-2011, 09:49 AM
I think that would give paying members far too great of an advantage.

They could perhaps do a dual-charge system. Free members get the game and nothing else. They can pay microtransactions for small things,etc. Subscribers get the game as well as all additional content (that others would have to pay microtransactions for). This would predominantly be cosmetic items/effects.

Another idea: Subscribers might get 'early release' info about game expansions and or beta testing priviledges for expansions and patches on a test server or some such.

ImmoralAtheist
03-09-2011, 12:29 PM
@NobleIre
Well, unless they're gonna live of marketing they will need to charge players. What you do is make 2 levels. Those who don't pay. They can still play the game and be able to stock buildings and so on, but payers will have a competitive edge, and if they implement some really good political systems (guilds can be an example of a type of "political system"), then leader roles requires you to pay premium account. However when you pay premium aco****, you get the full game, and developers can focus on actually improving the gameplay. Cosmetics might not be tempting enough, and this model is much better than paying for upgrades, or in game currency which debalances the game, and if there's no roof on how much you can spend, those who pay the most wins. A fair monthly pay is a better idea.
This is my opnion though, and it's what I think is most beneficial for gameplay. If they launch several worlds, there could also be a world where only payers can play. Inactivity is usually a huge problem in these games and a premium account only world would very likely drastically reduce inactivity, aswell as being completely fair.

Dolas
03-09-2011, 01:27 PM
@NobleIre
Well, unless they're gonna live of marketing they will need to charge players. What you do is make 2 levels. Those who don't pay. They can still play the game and be able to stock buildings and so on, but payers will have a competitive edge, and if they implement some really good political systems (guilds can be an example of a type of "political system"), then leader roles requires you to pay premium account. However when you pay premium aco****, you get the full game, and developers can focus on actually improving the gameplay. Cosmetics might not be tempting enough, and this model is much better than paying for upgrades, or in game currency which debalances the game, and if there's no roof on how much you can spend, those who pay the most wins. A fair monthly pay is a better idea.
This is my opnion though, and it's what I think is most beneficial for gameplay. If they launch several worlds, there could also be a world where only payers can play. Inactivity is usually a huge problem in these games and a premium account only world would very likely drastically reduce inactivity, aswell as being completely fair.

I agree with NobleIre, what you suggested in your previous post will give paying players a huge advantage. I also like NobleIre's idea about paying a subscription to test content before its released and be allowed an exclusive newsletter, it gives no gameplay advantage whatsoever, but allows players who want to feel ahead of the game to be so (plus its something different). Anything that effects gameplay is going to severely unbalance the game. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think charging players in order to be a guild leader (or something like that) will be the best thing for this game. And obviously they also don't have to have any micro-transactions at all. Guild Wars is free after you buy the box and they have no micro-transactions. Or they can sell advertisements like Shadow Bane did for a little bit(its annoying, but its free and everyone is on an equal playing field).

ImmoralAtheist
03-09-2011, 01:47 PM
I agree with NobleIre, what you suggested in your previous post will give paying players a huge advantage. I also like NobleIre's idea about paying a subscription to test content before its released and be allowed an exclusive newsletter, it gives no gameplay advantage whatsoever, but allows players who want to feel ahead of the game to be so (plus its something different). Anything that effects gameplay is going to severely unbalance the game. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think charging players in order to be a guild leader (or something like that) will be the best thing for this game. And obviously they also don't have to have any micro-transactions at all. Guild Wars is free after you buy the box and they have no micro-transactions. Or they can sell advertisements like Shadow Bane did for a little bit(its annoying, but its free and everyone is on an equal playing field).

Well, if they earn money on selling the game then that's something different. If they make the game free to play, then an option is to have what I said. What I said would be more like you have standard monthly fee, and you have trial account, which you can play aslong as you want, but with some restrictions. I'd rather have that than full of crap dlc because I think it might benefit development of gameplay more than the other alternatives.

Hellaciouss
04-25-2011, 01:18 PM
Thank you for actually reading my post and bothering to heed my request. (sarcasm) Also - it's Horrible*


In general, I agree with you Dracus. Microtransactions should generally not provide any sort of tactic (and definitely not substantial) advantage. They should general be for aesthetic or convenience purposes.

I do, however, believe in items of convenience. (for instance, a purchase that allows you to insta-move your base to another location without in-game cost). It wouldn't make you powerful, it is just a matter of convenience.

Any other ideas for things that could be included and charged for? I'm not necessarily saying that they will or even should have microtransactions - i'm just trying to come up with some ideas that are generally 'acceptable' for them, in case they do.

nvm, wont discuss if it should or shouldn't be in game.

GPS51
04-25-2011, 01:20 PM
Lol don't know about all that but I do know that anything you can pay for with a credit card you can also get by using in game currency.