«

»

Come on, we’re overreacting about Allod’s

I’ve waited a few days to voice my opinion on the Allod’s Online issue, really, because I was hoping the issue would resolve itself. Instead, it’s snowballed into one of the biggest controversy’s we’ve had in the last year. After reading the masses of posts, some in favor, some against, I have to toss my own two cents in the ring.

The cash shop spike was a mistake, plain and simple. Spiking the prices in the cash shop and then herding players towards it for a “fair experience” is nothing short of a bait and switch. Frankly, gPotato should be ashamed of themselves right about now. Not because of the prices. They should be ashamed because, as a company, they totally overestimated how much they could shaft the North American gamer. Any one of us could have told them that doing this was a mistake. And, unlike many F2P fans seem to think, we’re not against companies making a profit.

But, let’s consider the reality of this situation: a F2P game pushes people to use cash shop. Is anyone really surprised? Let’s put it to the side for a minute that we’re getting unfair treatment compared to the Russians. If you could honestly be competitive, or actually enjoy everything the game had to offer without buying anything, would that be a smart decision either? I mean, we have to be real here.

They were going for our wallets the whole time and we were so keen to embrace the microtransaction model that we decided to hope instead of be realistic.

Just like Sid67 pointed out over at Spouse Aggro, the whole F2P design is about putting obstacles in the game you have to buy your way around. Gpotato saw that this market was teetering on the edge of accepting cash shops, full-load, and took advantage of it. Yeah, in the long term, I think they’ve screwed themselves out of a lot of potential profits. But, like Beau asks, what happens when you sell 10,000 $20 backpacks?

I think what happened here is that a bunch of people with the P2P philosophy of equal playing field for all decided to trust in a game designed around the exact opposite mindset. I can’t help but imagine a bunch of guys in suits with dollar signs in their eyes looking at us in a big fish bowl. Well, we got burned.

And, you know, I see both sides of the fence here. Really, I do. Beau is right when he says that a cash shop is just a sub. chopped into smaller parts. He’s also right that there’s always going to be someone able to pay more than the next guy. That’s great for them, and I hope they enjoy it. It just reinforces to me how much I value being on an equal level with my fellow player.

Part of me wants to say this is all too bad. Allod’s Online looked like it could be a lot of fun. People really enjoyed it in Closed Beta. On the other hand, I’m remorseless. If the failure of Allod’s is what it takes to tell game developers that we won’t accept being manipulated, shafted, exploited, or however else it’s been referred to, than that’s a necessary sacrifice. 2010 has more to offer than last year’s hope.

7 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. xXJayeDuBXx

    I agree with you, there is nothing wrong with a company trying to make money. But the handling of the cash shop is such a debacle in my opinion. Maybe things wouldn’t be so bad if the prices on the cash shop stayed the same as in beta, we may never know.

  2. Dickie

    I’ve got to say this is likely the best piece I’ve read on this whole ordeal, and I agree with you.

  3. Kendricke

    “If you could honestly be competitive, or actually enjoy everything the game had to offer without buying anything, would that be a smart decision either? I mean, we have to be real here.”

    Two words: Club Penguin.

    1. Chris

      Touche, sir. :-)

  4. Carson63000

    Yep, people really do need to bear in mind that in a F2P+shop game, the majority of players are never going to spend a cent; hence, for the developer to provide a product comparable in quality to a subscription-based game (and many people feel that Allods IS comparable), those that do spend money are simply going to have to spend more than the $15/month that they would expect to pay for a subscription.

  5. Tesh

    “the whole F2P design is about putting obstacles in the game you have to buy your way around”

    Which is no worse philosophically than P2P design being all about putting in obstacles that you have to sink a lot of time into to artificially extend the play and pay time. Remember those who whine about the leveling grind before they get to their favorite part, raiding? It must stink to be a captive audience required to pay just to stay in the club.

    What if players could raid on day one with an instant level-capped character? Imagine the fuss.

    Companies need to make money. They leverage an audience’s interest to do so. Subs slip under the radar for a lot of people, but they are no less abusive at times, and they have no moral high ground. Yes, AO botched the execution here; they just don’t understand the business model. For someone who *does* get it, check out Daniel James of Three Rings:

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/2008/9/29/

  6. annomyni

    i just quit world of warcraft after playing it for 3 years, i stopped because its alot of cash i´ve paid for a silly game, i start at this game because its free,

  1. The Best Of The Rest: Favion Edition - We Fly Spitfires - MMORPG Blog

    [...] In lieu of last weeks ruckus over the Allods Online cash shop, Game By Night says lets take everything in sensible proportion and not overreact. [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge