Zem

Just between us n00bs then, do I understand correctly that the Q-exchange is strictly between players? i.e. It's not the game that is exchanging Q for Zen. It is other players buying my Q with their Zen (which they presumably purchased with real money)? In other words, it is an RMT farming operation run by the publisher rather than an outside company?

Heh... you're not kidding about being spoiled now. CO's tutorial took me BACK actually. Sprinting in CoH, before the Sprint speed increases, before temp travel powers. I think it was perhaps one of the worst mistakes they made when they introduced this game. I suppose this is 20/20 hindsight, but what you really want to do, especially in a superhero game, is make people feel super-heroic. Sprinting from one end of Atlas to the other or, worse, to the train, and then across another zone or two to get to some random mission door? And then all the way back only to be told to go to another zone again for the next mission? I wonder how many people we lost to that nonsense, never to return.

But to be fair to most other MMOs, these days even if you don't have some kind of travel speed ability in the early levels at least they don't make you run very far. CO's tutorial wasn't that big and you generally progressed through it rather than having to run from one end to the other and back. When you finish, you have your travel power of choice. In SWTOR, you also progress from one area to the next generally, at least early on, with those areas being connected by public transport.

Well first, it does matter. Sprinting in TOR is not one of the "basics" really as it is in some games. Not like you were moving at walking speed without it. For a long time people got along in the game just fine jogging around, using fast travel, public transport, and eventually Sprint and Speeders. Not that I don't appreciate it being available at level 1 now. I think that was the right decision too. But... and I think not everyone realizes this...

Spend $5 on ANYTHING in the market and you'll have Sprint unlocked at level 1.

Just like CoH distinguished free and premium, the raw F2P restrictions in TOR are harsher than the "preferred" F2P restrictions to separate the customers supporting the game from the true free-loaders. People were complaining about only being able to chat once a minute or something like that. Sounds harsh, but again that's lifted (as far as I know) once you spend that minimum amount in the market.

Not trying to be a fanboy here, but if you're not going to spend even $5 on the market, then you're not a customer and nobody should care if you aren't playing.

Regardless, of course, even with Sprint at level 1 if you're coming from here or CO you're not going to be happy about travel speed. It just won't compare. But that's true of most MMOs as compared to here.

Really? Because I recall plenty of DOOM when F2P was announced here.

That wasn't my point anyway. My point was that people who think there has been any awareness raised with their protesting are deluding themselves. No one is talking about this outside of here, CO, and DCUO forums, plus a few blogs maybe. The mainstream gaming press gave it the "Oh by the way, CoH is shutting down" honorable mention and then went back to telling us about all the latest games. NCSoft isn't suffering any consumer backlash for shutting down CoH.

So maybe you get flamed for suggesting the new game might not last that long and it might not be a good idea to drop hundreds of dollars on the cash shop right away. Big deal. At least people heard you, which you can't say for calls to boycott games. No one is going to notice a boycott from a few CoH players.

Service protection is a great idea. I just don't see why this needs to be a law. Are we experiencing an epidemic of fly-by-night MMOs opening, setting up cash shops, and then being gone by morning with the profits? Because THAT is real fraud. A legitimate company can't long survive conducting business that way, so while I think we should all be responsible about spending large amounts of money in the cash shops of these F2P games, I don't exactly see this as a problem the market shouldn't be able to solve on its own yet.

Exhibit A -- Star Wars: The Old Republic.

LOTS of people think that SWTOR is on its way out if F2P doesn't revive it and that may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy if people are too afraid to pony up to the cash shop. If I were these guys, I'd "go big or go home." Put your rep on the table and guarantee cash shop purchases for up to one year prior to any closure. That gives immediate assurance that you will be able to enjoy those purchases for at least a year (or your money back!), allowing you to value them appropriately. It will encourage people to open those wallets when they might otehrwise be fearful to do so.

Doesn't mean you will be supporting a dev team for that whole year. If it really isn't working out you can slowly cut back and ramp down development until you're in maintenance mode. The writing will be on the wall, but if you keep the game open for a year, even in a low-cost mode like that, you can keep all those initial cash shop purchases at least. People have time to enjoy their purchases and won't feel like they've been cheated, even if they aren't exactly happy you're closing down their MMO.

I wish I could remember what show I was watching (loooong time ago), but yeah, they were interviewing local people who were outraged that McDonalds was coming in and telling them they couldn't have products named starting with "Mc" in Scotland of all places. They even went up and spoke to Lord MacDonald himself who said something like, "Look, if anyone has the right to the name, it's ME!!"

Hilarious.

Not "everyone" believes that. Government regulation has its place. Consumer advocacy (and protest) has its place also. Companies are not immune to negative publicity provided it is factual.

That'd be why I used the word "subtly". You can't just burst in there and go ranting about the death of CoH. Instead you very nonchalantly insert yourself into a conversation about some item on the cash shop, maybe even expressing interest in it yourself, but also "concern" about the value of that item given it's only good for as long as the game lasts. You don't have to breathe a word about CoH.

And seriously, even if you're not out for blood, this is a very sensible point to make. People SHOULD be aware that cash shops might not be forever. It is in your own best interests to make people aware of this. If it becomes a concern for enough of their customers, then they have to address it. Convincing other people to vote with THEIR wallets instead of just voting with your own, is absolutely fair game.

The fact that it was sold to you as a service makes it a service. You were never promised access to these items outside the game. No offline mode existed. You KNEW this. If you decided anyway to spend large amounts of money in the cash shop thinking this game couldn't possible end any time soon, then you made a foolish decision and ought to take some responsibility for that.

That is not to say there should be no consequences for NCSoft. The possibility of cash shop items going away when the game does should be a factor in the decision to buy. It should depress the value of those items, in fact. Now that I think of it, why boycott other NCSoft F2P games when you could join them, participate in their forums, and (subtly) remind your fellow gamers of this fact? You know... as a public service.

Except I DO agree. There are real issues in the realm of cloud services that people need to keep an eye on. I just don't think this is one of them. Unlike an e-book, a song, or some document I write on Google docs, the items in the CoH cash shop didn't correspond to anything I could reasonably "take with me" outside the game. Not only are they only accessible within the game, their only USE and purpose is within the game.

I can see regulation that might require a notification period and refunds for some limited amount of time for items purchased in the cash shop, but I don't see that time limit being more than a few months. More than that and you're demanding the company run the business for a lengthy period of time without the expectation of reasonable revenues. Because who is going to be spending money on a game that's not going to be around in a few months?

No joke.

McDonalds must have an army of lawyers that do nothing all day but look for anything starting with the letters "MC". We had a product name once that started with the abbreviation "MCU" (as in, "Micro-Controller Unit") and after filing for a trademark, received a call from a McDonalds lawyer asking for info. Of course they just went, "Oh, okay. Nevermind, thanks!" and hung up. But still...

Saw a story once that they've even harassed people in Scotland for having products starting with "Mc" in the name! Think about that a second.

Which is why I said "if" they had no plans for the property. Doesn't mean they won't fire off a C&D anyway just to be jerks about it, but who knows? I don't think anyone is actively going after Ultima Online emulators, are they? Other games, sure. But not all of them bother to defend against small-time free emulator operations.

Your clarifications don't change anything. Would you want the government telling you you can't get out of a business you're running at the moment because it happens to be profitable? How profitable, by the way? What if you think it is about to become unprofitable in the near future? What if you just want to retire? Are you forced to sell it? Do you think you'll get a good price when everyone else knows you're being FORCED to sell?

It's a terrible idea.

Nobody should be allowed to discontinue a service? Are you serious? Do you even know what the consequence of such a law, if it existed, would be?

I doubt it.

They would have nothing to gain by blocking an emulator unless they actually had plans to DO something with the CoH IP.

There never was. It isn't the fault of your fellow CoH fans that people who don't play this game don't care that it is closing its doors. I mean take a step back and try to imagine, for real, the kind of negative publicity that would be required to shame NCSoft into taking another look at CoH. Do you honestly think we're anywhere near that level of awareness in the media? Are ALL of the gaming news site ablaze every day with news of this atrocity?

No.

If you don't want to give up, then don't. But at least have the decency not to blame people who DID support this game with considerable amounts of their time and money, for its demise.

Weird, yeah. I tried finding more info on this too and it seems people actually believe this is five revivals... period. Like if they gave you five wakies in CoH and then said the only way to get more is to hit the cash shop. Also not clear how this applies to teammates reviving you, particularly those with in-combat rez abilities ("Sorry sucker, you just wasted your rez on a Freep who's over his limit!"??)

I did find some SWTOR forumites downplaying the idea this is a restriction by saying how HARD it is to die in PvE, but I don't recall it being all that hard back when I played this game at launch, especially on Flashpoints. I suspect their opinions are those of someone who has already become very familiar with all of that. New players will be dying plenty, getting annoyed by this limit, and leaving... if it's really a hard limit of 5 field revives, ever.

Really? I don't follow either of those games, but for kicks I googled my way over to a B&S forum called "Blade and Soul Dojo" and ran a few searches. Didn't really see much in the way of buzz about the closing of City of Heroes.

I suspect it is wishful thinking to believe the average MMO gamer knows enough or cares enough about CoH and what happened to it, to punish NCSoft for it. If there was some kind of ground-swell of negative opinion outside of these boards and a few other CoH-friendly blog sites, NCSoft would be reacting to it. They aren't. There isn't. That doesn't make me happy to say it. It's just the truth. They don't need protests and petitions to let them know how many people care about CoH. They have the population data from the game. They know exactly how many people support this game, where they are, when they play, how much they spend on it... and they are going ahead with closing it anyway.

I don't think anyone believes it couldn't. But turn your question around. Instead of pointing at the few old time MMOs still in existence, how about all those that HAVE been ended? There is precedent both for old MMOs puttering along with sub one-percent market shares AND for companies just not finding it worth doing. This is unfortunately a case of the latter. Of COURSE they could have found a way to keep it running for years to come, even if only in a maintenance mode with a much reduced population. So why didn't they?

Something made them decide to close it down and I have trouble believing the reason was, "Hey Paragon Studios! Stop throwing money at us! We hate money. We already have enough! You're fired!"

Advertising puffery is hardly something that is just now happening in the modern world. Generally, it is allowed in advertising provided the relevant trade authorities believe no "reasonable person" would take such claims literally. In this particular case it is just a concise way of saying you can continue to play the game without paying recurring fees. It is implied, again to any reasonable person, that one can only play the game for as long as it exists. I knew this. You knew this. Any reasonable person knew this.

So what's the problem?

I'm not defending every advertising claim ever, mind. Advertisers cross the line all the time and get called on it all the time. I don't think this is such a case is all. No one should have read this and actually believed it was a promise to keep this game running literally for all time.

Yes, you are being silly. Do not try to tell me you read "forever" in that ad and assumed the game would literally NEVER shut down. Because I don't believe you. And I don't think any court would either.

No. No I don't get it. Because what you just said is completely wrong. The cable company doesn't own your TV. The internet provider doesn't own your computer. This is more like having to return a cable set-top box that you've only been renting from the cable company.

This was an online-only game and you knew it. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Now THIS is a proper response. If the value-proposition of MMOs disagrees with you, hit the road and don't look back. I continue to play MMOs because I only play them if I enjoy playing them. And if I am enjoying playing them then, just like a cable TV subscription, I am getting my money's worth. I am getting what I paid for.

Not sure I agree the First Sale Doctrine isn't a case of public good. Doesn't this enable used re-sale markets and the like? But yes consumers do have other rights granted that just seemed fair, I suppose. I still don't see this as a reason for making laws about MMOs shutting down. Aren't there already sufficient laws governing service providers?

Nice. I would counter with a lengthy explanation of how sometimes that word isn't meant to be taken literally but I have some work to catch up on. It took me forever to get through traffic this morning.

Fraud implies you were promised something that wasn't delivered. With a subscription fee, it's easy to judge that because I know if I've received the service I've paid for and I would certainly expect a refund if I've paid in advance for service I don't get because the game shut down.

But it's less clear with these F2P micro-transactions. How long should you expect to use an item you pay for in the cash shop? If they leave the game running for 3 months after the announcement, can you really claim a refund if they're allowing you the use of those purchases for 3 months? Even the idea of an offline mode doesn't exactly solve the problem for people who play MMOs for the multiplayer so you'll always have the problem of how to shut down an MMO without having to give everything back.

I'd be tempted to agree that unused virtual currency should be refunded as cash, but then what about points "earned" through subscription stipend or other in-game means or promotions (for those MMOs where such things exist?) If you require that to be seen as a cash liability on the company's books, you can expect that sort of thing to go away entirely. Or maybe it'd be okay if they could keep virtual money separate from real money. e.g. You pay for items with a mixture of real money and/or virtual money but you never BUY virtual currency.

Something like that might be doable, but I still don't think legislating an offline mode is the way.

Which reason applies here? There's no fraud if you were never promised the game would last forever. Consumer health/safety? Don't think so. Environmental concerns? I doubt it. Anti-trust? Nope. So what legal basis would you choose for this law? You are essentially asking the government to impose a value-add feature into a product because... you want it. That's not how this should work and it would set a very bad precedent. Heck, I'm a liberal-leaning moderate and even I wouldn't want THIS much government meddling in product design.