The Ethics of Optional Item Sales

[Gyson]

Buy it if you like it.

Don't buy it if you don't.

It's optional and has no impact on gameplay. Nothing unethical, given how they've been 100% transparent about what they're for.

Ain't rocket science.

Apparently it is, because it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

The idea is that you're paying a company for a game service. Part of that service includes the idea that the developers will continue to work on new assets to add to the game you're paying a monthly payment for. Turning around and charging you for those same new assets you've already helped pay to create is, well, not right (no matter how you want to dress it up). Now, you can say "don't buy it if you don't like it", but that doesn't change any of what I just said.

Whether you acknowledge that or not doesn't matter, as even game developers themselves understand this. That is why they often argue that a cash shop allows them to hire additional help in the form of employees who work solely on cash shop assets. In saying that, they are trying to make it clear that cash shop content is funded entirely (and solely) through cash shop purchases. And with that, everyone should be happy, right?

Unfortunately, it depends on how honest the developer is being with that statement. Usually the answer seems to be "not entirely" or "not at all". And that is the meat of the problem.

[GenJoe]

The idea is that you're paying a company for a game service. Part of that service includes the idea that the developers will continue to work on new assets to add to the game you're paying a monthly payment for

Yeah.. try telling a cop "I pay your salary" and see where that leads ya :P

Just because you pay SE for their services, it doesn't mean you're entitled to every little bit of their creation. That'd be nice I admit, there are some indie developers that take user feedback and put it directly into the games and even allowing users to have direct input on how the funds are used, but that is certainly not the norm. Also, SE's sheer size and structure would make that impossible to achieve.

Not to mention the varying degrees of customer expectations, you can't possibly please everybody.. Might as well take the path that makes them the money.

[Welsper59]

The idea is that you're paying a company for a game service. Part of that service includes the idea that the developers will continue to work on new assets to add to the game you're paying a monthly payment for. Turning around and charging you for those same new assets you've already helped pay to create is, well, not right (no matter how you want to dress it up). Now, you can say "don't buy it if you don't like it", but that doesn't change any of what I just said.

Forcing your own opinions upon others, no matter how many people might agree, does not mean you are right. Point out any part of the paid subscription agreement that states specifically that that is what the service you pay for entitles you to.

Whether you acknowledge that or not doesn't matter, as even game developers themselves understand this.

Isn't this like you saying "it doesn't matter if there's no proof, I'm always right".

It's very true that not all of the money spent by the players goes entirely to FFXIV. Only an idiot (or someone that is ignorant of fiscal duties) would think otherwise. There are dues to be paid for credit card transactions, server usage, employee salaries, etc. Not to mention the fact that SE is not a company catering solely to FFXIV, and given that the FFXIV team works for SE, well... money is generally pooled to the company itself. Encumbrances are usually set from this pool for departments to use. If issuing more money to a department means better production and profits, then more money is likely to be given to said department. So if the Cash Shop brings in profit, SE will likely decide to give FFXIV a larger budget if requested, which means more quality content/products/services/etc to be had from the department.

[Gyson]

Apparently it is, because it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

The idea is that you're paying a company for a game service. Part of that service includes the idea that the developers will continue to work on new assets to add to the game you're paying a monthly payment for. Turning around and charging you for those same new assets you've already helped pay to create is, well, not right (no matter how you want to dress it up). Now, you can say "don't buy it if you don't like it", but that doesn't change any of what I just said.

Whether you acknowledge that or not doesn't matter, as even game developers themselves understand this. That is why they often argue that a cash shop allows them to hire additional help in the form of employees who work solely on cash shop assets. In saying that, they are trying to make it clear that cash shop content is funded entirely (and solely) through cash shop purchases. And with that, everyone should be happy, right?

Unfortunately, it depends on how honest the developer is being with that statement. Usually the answer seems to be "not entirely" or "not at all". And that is the meat of the problem.

Forcing your own opinions upon others, no matter how many people might agree, does not mean you are right. Point out any part of the paid subscription agreement that states specifically that that is what the service you pay for entitles you to.

Isn't this like you saying "it doesn't matter if there's no proof, I'm always right".

Not in the slightest, and it's unfortunate you took it that way. While ultimately I can't help how you choose to perceive my comments, I'm simply regurgitating information that developers have doled out to the public in the past.

The same goes for this fellow and his odd analogy:

Yeah.. try telling a cop "I pay your salary" and see where that leads ya :P

Just because you pay SE for their services, it doesn't mean you're entitled to every little bit of their creation. That'd be nice I admit, there are some indie developers that take user feedback and put it directly into the games and even allowing users to have direct input on how the funds are used, but that is certainly not the norm.

I feel like both of you are, perhaps, new to MMOs. And I define "new" as someone who hasn't been participating in MMO games since they began to gain popularity back in the 90's. Those of us that did game since that period were around when a subscription fee allowed players to access all content added to the game (without having to pay additional fees beyond the monthly sub).

For newer MMO gamers I can certainly understand how cash shops may seem like the norm now, but the fact is development studios used to be able to create games with similar levels of content (and smaller player bases) without turning to cash shops and DLC for additional funding. Early Everquest and even FFXI are good examples of this as far as MMOs go. Unfortunately for all of us, greed and pressure from management have changed this (and I speak from experience on this as someone from that industry).

Any developer will tell you that an MMO is "never done" and that new content will always be forthcoming. I can't recall any that have dared advertised the idea that your monthly subscription fee would only be used to keep the lights on, and to not expect any additional content in the game's future despite your continued financial support. That would be a ridiculous death sentence for any MMO project.

For better or worse, evolution happens, and there will likely come a day when no one bats an eye at cash shops or DLC. We're not there yet, nor likely to be there for some time, and until then threads like this are perfectly understandable (although obviously bound to be controversial as different generations of gamers clash).

[Izsha]

I feel like both of you are, perhaps, new to MMOs. And I define "new" as someone who hasn't been participating in MMO games since they began to gain popularity back in the 90's. Those of us that did game since that period were around when a subscription fee allowed players to access all content added to the game (without having to pay additional fees beyond the monthly sub).

For newer MMO gamers I can certainly understand how cash shops may seem like the norm now, but the fact is development studios used to be able to create games with similar levels of content (and smaller player bases) without turning to cash shops and DLC for additional funding. Early Everquest and even FFXI are good examples of this as far as MMOs go. Unfortunately for all of us, greed and pressure from management have changed this (and I speak from experience on this as someone from that industry).

Any developer will tell you that an MMO is "never done" and that new content will always be forthcoming. I can't recall any that have dared advertised the idea that your monthly subscription fee would only be used to keep the lights on, and to not expect any additional content in the game's future despite your continued financial support. That would be a ridiculous death sentence for any MMO project.

I if you've been playing mmos as long as you imply you'd realize your own error. There are tons of 'dead' mmos where you pay literally to keep the lights on. Ffxi just announced that the end of this year will be the last content uodate. Ever. You can keep playing but the mmo is in fact 'done'. Ffxi subscriptions will keep the lights on and probably weed out the occasional discovered bug. There are TONS of dead mmos that still have servers but zero content still being mmade.

And to all the 'subscription should give me evetything' people, how do you justify buying expansions? It's a 1 time fee for content that according to your own logic, should he included via subscription.

You can't get all uppity about buying a Xmas hat in cash shop, then turn around and drop 40 bucks for an expac. If instead they put heavensward story in cash shop for 20, raids for 20, you'd be having a conniption. But if it's in a pretty box with a dvd, buying content is suddenly perfectly fine. Stop the double standards.

[Gyson]

I feel like both of you are, perhaps, new to MMOs. And I define "new" as someone who hasn't been participating in MMO games since they began to gain popularity back in the 90's. Those of us that did game since that period were around when a subscription fee allowed players to access all content added to the game (without having to pay additional fees beyond the monthly sub).

For newer MMO gamers I can certainly understand how cash shops may seem like the norm now, but the fact is development studios used to be able to create games with similar levels of content (and smaller player bases) without turning to cash shops and DLC for additional funding. Early Everquest and even FFXI are good examples of this as far as MMOs go. Unfortunately for all of us, greed and pressure from management have changed this (and I speak from experience on this as someone from that industry).

Any developer will tell you that an MMO is "never done" and that new content will always be forthcoming. I can't recall any that have dared advertised the idea that your monthly subscription fee would only be used to keep the lights on, and to not expect any additional content in the game's future despite your continued financial support. That would be a ridiculous death sentence for any MMO project.

For better or worse, evolution happens, and there will likely come a day when no one bats an eye at cash shops or DLC. We're not there yet, nor likely to be there for some time, and until then threads like this are perfectly understandable (although obviously bound to be controversial as different generations of gamers clash).

I if you've been playing mmos as long as you imply you'd realize your own error. There are tons of 'dead' mmos where you pay literally to keep the lights on. Ffxi just announced that the end of this year will be the last content uodate. Ever. You can keep playing but the mmo is in fact 'done'. Ffxi subscriptions will keep the lights on and probably weed out the occasional discovered bug. There are TONS of dead mmos that still have servers but zero content still being mmade.

And to all the 'subscription should give me evetything' people, how do you justify buying expansions? It's a 1 time fee for content that according to your own logic, should he included via subscription.

You can't get all uppity about buying a Xmas hat in cash shop, then turn around and drop 40 bucks for an expac. If instead they put heavensward story in cash shop for 20, raids for 20, you'd be having a conniption. But if it's in a pretty box with a dvd, buying content is suddenly perfectly fine. Stop the double standards.

No, the error is in that I wasn't more clear in that I was referring to MMOs under development (either pre-release, or post when they're still being actively supported). Obviously my statement wouldn't apply to games where the developers have announced their intentions to discontinue future development (I felt that went without saying, but apparently not since I now have to clarify that for you). I hope we can both agree that, unlike FFXI's future, FFXIV is not at that point (and as such I feel your point doesn't apply to this game).

Expansions (which often double the size of the original game) versus microtransactions are an odd comparison. Again, I hope we can both agree that the former provides far more content per dollar than the latter. Having said that, I think we're all aware that expansions often come under fire as well, and are susceptible to the same problem that plagues cash shop items and DLC: developers insist the development of this content is not pulling resources from the core game, but (in my experience) that is rarely true.

You're applying a double standard by painting me with a brush of your making, one that doesn't mirror reality. I purchase expansions as well as DLC and items from cash shops, and never claimed not to. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of the issues surrounding them. It would also be ridiculously for me to claim I didn't miss the days when gamers received the same amount of content (as they do now) without being nickel and dimed in the process. I'm sure others feel the same, where as yet others are unfamiliar with these games every operating under a different model than they do now. Thus, threads like this (and the differing reactions to them) don't surprise me. The individuals who are surprised by these threads, however, are what surprises me (in that "how can this lack of understanding still exist" sort of way).

[Welsper59]

Not in the slightest, and it's unfortunate you took it that way. While ultimately I can't help how you choose to perceive my comments, I'm simply regurgitating information that developers have doled out to the public in the past.

The same goes for this fellow and his odd analogy:



I feel like both of you are, perhaps, new to MMOs. And I define "new" as someone who hasn't been participating in MMO games since they began to gain popularity back in the 90's. Those of us that did game since that period were around when a subscription fee allowed players to access all content added to the game (without having to pay additional fees beyond the monthly sub).

For newer MMO gamers I can certainly understand how cash shops may seem like the norm now, but the fact is development studios used to be able to create games with similar levels of content (and smaller player bases) without turning to cash shops and DLC for additional funding. Early Everquest and even FFXI are good examples of this as far as MMOs go. Unfortunately for all of us, greed and pressure from management have changed this (and I speak from experience on this as someone from that industry).

Any developer will tell you that an MMO is "never done" and that new content will always be forthcoming. I can't recall any that have dared advertised the idea that your monthly subscription fee would only be used to keep the lights on, and to not expect any additional content in the game's future despite your continued financial support. That would be a ridiculous death sentence for any MMO project.

For better or worse, evolution happens, and there will likely come a day when no one bats an eye at cash shops or DLC. We're not there yet, nor likely to be there for some time, and until then threads like this are perfectly understandable (although obviously bound to be controversial as different generations of gamers clash).

It is true that I wasn't big on MMOs during the 90s, but I was around since WoW and FFXI launch (also dabbled very briefly with EQ before that). The whole milking of money for half a solid game perspective didn't exist much at all until the late 2000s probably, and it really didn't have much to do with genre. You could say the same thing about console gaming (not just MMOs) back in the 90s honestly. I really wouldn't say MMOs gained popularity until WoW hit the scene though. Not so much because WoW was so revolutionary compared, but because of technological timing. Games like EQ is famous, but hardly as iconic to the growth in popularity as WoW (which is where the mainstream perspective began to take root). Broadband and the idea of a computer being a household expectation wasn't exactly common until around that time, afterall.

You might be misunderstanding your own explanation on some points. There's a huge difference between saying that your money pays for access to available content and saying that your money simply "keeps the lights on". Typically when you sub for something, you are getting reasonable access to what service you're paying for. Nothing more. There is no presented proof to say otherwise. It's a bit underhanded at times, but there are SO MANY VARIABLES at play when you deal with multi-million dollar companies, as I gave a brief idea to earlier. The amount of services we have to pay for now is far greater than it was 20 years ago, likewise the costs for said services has gone up exponentially compared to that time. That's just a couple of an almost infinite number of potential fiscal problems companies deal with. When you're dealing with money, someones personal righteous attitude or belief is never going to hold up to the powers that control the flow of resources available without some sort of financial benefit. This is how it has always been, since economics came to be.

When we talk about things referring to what one is entitled to from a business transaction, in other words legally bound, there's no "believing" or "should" involved here. Devs can say whatever they want when expressing their views (within certain context and limitations), but they are not bound to abiding by it. They can tell you they believe something should be this way, which is typically truthful, but stuff happens and you can't always produce desired results.

You're applying a double standard by painting me with a brush of your making, one that doesn't mirror reality. I purchase expansions as well as DLC and items from cash shops, and never claimed not to. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of the issues surrounding them. It would also be ridiculously for me to claim I didn't miss the days when gamers received the same amount of content (as they do now) without being nickel and dimed in the process. I'm sure others feel the same, where as yet others are unfamiliar with these games every operating under a different model than they do now. Thus, threads like this (and the differing reactions to them) don't surprise me. The individuals who are surprised by these threads, however, are what surprises me (in that "how can this lack of understanding still exist" sort of way).

You know, for someone who comes off as somewhat zen, you don't seem to acknowledge technical variables when it comes to how it used to be, and how it is now. It's very true that some companies will nickel and dime every single thing they can, but with the current state of things in FFXIV, people paint it as though they're trying to take away entire raids and the ability to even create a character (exaggeration obviously)... because of vanity... because of dyes... because of *insert petty item comparison*. Business practices have changed over time, and there's no doubt that this sort of thing would have happened in the 90s, if technology and the gaming market were up to par with what we have today. It just comes with the territory of any business, doesn't have to be game related, as it seems like you might have an understanding for.

Whether or not people understand how business works according to the times it is referred to, whether they stick to fairy tale beliefs of how things must be (creative freedoms, infinite resources, etc), and so on are not surprising to encounter. No matter how many times it happens. Not everyone will have the same experiences and we'll all have our own ways of understanding what we can. Business always evolves, but it's often not just because of one specific thing. And as I already said, if this same degree of advancement in other fields existed back then, things would have been similar to what it is now. Applying a personal belief upon others is wrong on all levels without understanding circumstance.

[GenJoe]

I feel like both of you are, perhaps, new to MMOs. And I define "new" as someone who hasn't been participating in MMO games since they began to gain popularity back in the 90's. Those of us that did game since that period were around when a subscription fee allowed players to access all content added to the game (without having to pay additional fees beyond the monthly sub).

No, I've been playing MMOs since the early 2000s, 2001-2002ish. I admit, I didn't start off with any of the iconic classics like Ultima Online, DAoC, Everquest, or even Lineage, but I've been around the scene long enough to remember the days when cash shops were non-existent. Like I said, I've never bought any premium features on cash shops myself, but if that's the direction SE chooses to go as a corporation, I don't believe myself to be so damn entitled for paying a measly $15 a month to demand that they provide me with all the perks.

For better or worse, evolution happens, and there will likely come a day when no one bats an eye at cash shops or DLC. We're not there yet, nor likely to be there for some time, and until then threads like this are perfectly understandable (although obviously bound to be controversial as different generations of gamers clash).

You're exactly right, the evolution HAS happened, You may not be there, but I am. I've come to accept it for what it is, and I've chosen to embrace it, in a manner that is positive to the game, which I think SE's cash shop could use a bit of tweaking. Largely, expanding the vanity/mount sold on the shop, and introducing game-time items as a tradable in-game item. Let the players control the economy. Let US determine what gil is worth in dollars, not some smarmy gil botters.

P.S. We can get into the whole debate of real money vs. game money stuff here, but I'll just make it clear. As long as there's no abuse (account hacking, paypal scams, botting) involved, I'm perfectly fine with people trading one for the other, as long as both parties are aware of exactly what one is paying for.

Really, that shouldn't be any different than my friend buying me dinner for getting a group together to run him through contents or crafting him a set of items.. Except the voluntary part, but hey, nothing brings strangers together like a business transaction.

[DreadRabbit]

Let the players control the economy. Let US determine what gil is worth in dollars, not some smarmy gil botters.

We already do. Buyers (and I mean players buying anything in game or buying from gil sellers) determine the average prices of items sold. If people didn't agree with the gil botters' prices, then we wouldn't be having this problem because no one would be buying from them.

Everything you just said you can already do with items in game. Why on Earth do you need premium items to do the same things? People are already buying gil because they want easier access to what's already here. How is adding more items to the pool of things players want going to change that at all? If you really want to get in on the premium item trading that badly, then go buy some EB bracelets and go to town.

Back to OP: SE's cash shop hasn't done anything yet to warrant criticism and calling out as being unethical. Cash shops are a norm, and as long as things are purely vanity and are in some way controlled, I have no issues with it.

[GenJoe]

We already do. Buyers (and I mean players buying anything in game or buying from gil sellers) determine the average prices of items sold. If people didn't agree with the gil botters' prices, then we wouldn't be having this problem because no one would be buying from them.

Everything you just said you can already do with items in game. Why on Earth do you need premium items to do the same things? People are already buying gil because they want easier access to what's already here. How is adding more items to the pool of things players want going to change that at all? If you really want to get in on the premium item trading that badly, then go buy some EB bracelets and go to town.

Back to OP: SE's cash shop hasn't done anything yet to warrant criticism and calling out as being unethical. Cash shops are a norm, and as long as things are purely vanity and are in some way controlled, I have no issues with it.

No, I personally take little interest in premium items, or vanity gear for that matter.. Which is part of the reason why I've never bought anything from cash shop..

What I AM saying is, if the gil <-> $ was controlled by players, then gil prices would drop significantly, RMT won't be as profitable, botting won't be as profitable, AND it will open up the pockets of crafters who are hoarding hundreds of millions, if not billions of gil and have nothing to spend them on, thus make the economy healthier.
I say this for a couple reasons:

1. Legitimizing the gil <-> $ trade will eliminate the back alley premium that RMT companies currently have, once everybody's in on it (not everybody WILL participate, but it will make the pool larger for sure) gil prices WILL drop as a result because of:

a. Reduced risk, Current gil prices are determined with the cost of new account built-in. PLUS quite a bit of labor costs. Majority of players don't calculate their gil as being worth as much as companies do, less overhead and less determination to make a real profit.

b. Increased competition, once a majority of the player base is enabled in the gil-trade, the legitimate kind.. It will drive the prices down. Simple fact, RMT profitability will also drop.


2. Crafter money going back into circulation.
There's a reason taking real life currency out of circulation is a crime, because it is a detriment to the economy. Looking at the current situation of things, many crafters are sitting on hundreds of millions of gil and have nothing to spend it on.. More money gets produced, more money goes to the crafters, and it stays there.. Eventually, economy WILL crash with this model. You already see few crafters that are able to crash the MB single-handedly, let people trade gil for cash shop items, and you will open up their wallets, provide a little boost the economy needs, and maybe even restart from square one, give everybody a fair chance. Chances are, the crafters will STILL make their way back up to their riches, but the point is, the money WILL move given enough motivation. Right now, there is no motivation for the money to change hands.