MMORPG.com - The Slippery Slope of SWTOR's Cartel Market

[Katsuragisama]

You can read the full article here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/g...el-Market.html

Here's a snippet:

I don’t mind accelerated progression – but it should be done in a way that doesn’t disrupt the actual in-game activities the game features. As I said earlier, Crew Skills are already in a dismal state. It is my opinion that BioWare should be focused on enhancing the interaction of new items and features with things players can actually do in the game (such as Crew Skills) in order to improve their importance and foster a more player-driven economy. Instead, it appears the Cartel Market is being used as a valid means to directly bypass some in-game activities and almost marginalize those who do decide to bother with them.

[Kelimbror]

Complete agree. It even raises some concerns I hadn't previously thought of. It should definitely be a major concern for people who want to play the game without throwing money at their screen.

Though I should say their team creating the things that should be on the market, the new versions of gear, mounts, and pets, are doing a great job. That should honestly be their focus...unfortunately it's not going to be.

[Argroth]

You can read the full article here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/g...el-Market.html

Here's a snippet:

I've always seen the inherent problem with cash shops, especially ones that interfere with game mechanics.

Some people are not so perceptive though....


I also hate people who say "slippery slope is a logical fallacy", those are people I see in denial of a bad habit or are just very near sighted in general.

[RoninaThorstone]

I also hate people who say "slippery slope is a logical fallacy", those are people I see in denial of a bad habit or are just very near sighted in general.

Okay, the reason it is a logical fallacy is that it assumes an outcome that is not causal.
The "slippery slope" argument is the structure for the "gateway drug" argument which has not held up under any scrutiny because it explains more drug use than there is. If heavy drinking leads to alcoholism than most college graduates would be on liver transplant lists by 40. If pot leads to methamphetamine or crack cocaine than about 60% of white people would have become addicted to crack/meth/heroine by the time they were 50.
How does this relate to a F2P model? F2P is commonly portrayed as the "gateway drug" to P2W. F2P does not automatically lead to P2W. So what does?
Well, in terms of drugs, people usually use recreational drugs for, well, recreation. They don't usually go on to become drug addicts (IE: chipping). The main source of addicts is self medication for anxiety, depression, anger ect. How does this translate to F2P/P2W? Companies are the "people" in this comparison, Mitt agrees with me. The companies who are too "greedy" or "profit centric" tend to push themselves toward P2W in the same way that people who self medicate using recreation drugs tend to delve into harder drugs.
F2P isn't the problem so much as the company who is running the game. There are plenty of F2P games that AREN'T P2W and thus the slippery slope argument doesn't hold up because if F2P was the cause of P2W than all F2P models would become P2W.

[Kelimbror]

There are plenty of F2P games that AREN'T P2W and thus the slippery slope argument doesn't hold up because if F2P was the cause of P2W than all F2P models would become P2W.

Yeah, but no one is saying that going F2P is what starts down the slippery slope.

It was being able to buy max level ship gear. Whether it is F2P or not is irrelevant to the metaphor. They decidedly and unabashedly took the first step up to the slippery slope. It's up to them whether to turn back or dive down it. Additionally, the idea of a slippery slope doesn't doesn't exactly apply to this scenario as it will be a willful choice of the company whether the expression of their greed results in further instances of pay to win.

Slippery slope is literally used to express events that potentially set someone up for an uncontrolled fall. In this specific scenario, the fault will be all theirs. Generally we all know what the metaphor means though, which is why it is being used to describe this situation.

[Deleted]

Space missions are a solo aspect of the game where your performance doesn't really affect the rest of the community or your ability in the other aspects of the game.
Or are they really a viable option for collecting credits and BH comms when put against dailies, HM FPs or Ops? I don't know I haven't really done any space missions passed the first few at launch...I got bored of them quickly. That is the only way they could affect the other more 'competitive' aspects of the game and I would be surprised if they were more lucrative than the other methods of collecting credits and comms. Let's not forget you still have to do the missions as well, it's not like they are selling a successful mission run.
Storm in a tea cup for me......I could be wrong and EA/BW do go down the route of selling level 50 character items on the CM, then they would be shooting themselves in the foot and they would lose the last bit of credibility that TOR has and they would deserve it. But IMHO this article is jumping the gun and onto the bandwagon of picking something, super analysing it looking for fault and stating the worst case scenario as a likely scenario.

[RoninaThorstone]

Yeah, but no one is saying that going F2P is what starts down the slippery slope.

Fair enough, I felt that was implied in the article but I might just be touchy. lol.

[Cooper]

I've always seen the inherent problem with cash shops, especially ones that interfere with game mechanics.

Some people are not so perceptive though....


I also hate people who say "slippery slope is a logical fallacy", those are people I see in denial of a bad habit or are just very near sighted in general.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when one fails to show the path between points A and D, ie, "If Verlander walks a guy to lead off an inning soon there will dogs and cats living together."

[Kelimbror]

Fair enough, I felt that was implied in the article but I might just be touchy. lol.

I don't know what article you read lol...you drinking on the job again? I think the one sentence that prompted that thought was

Well, it’s beginning to look like BioWare is on a bit of a slippery slope and I’ve had these reservations since the initial free-to-play launch.

Substitute f2p launch with 'cash shop' and you have a more accurate reflection of the author. Anyone who has experience with Cash Shops would have reservations about the possibility of going pay 2 win. I think his approval of the fluff items and intelligence of the argument beyond my simplistic view of, 'you just paid for max level gear', proves he's thinking critically and unbiased.

I don't read articles from that website normally, even though they do have a good resource on all the games out there. I might have to start if they are that balanced in their writing.

[RoninaThorstone]

Yeah, that sentence tainted the rest of the article for me.

Paired with

I've always seen the inherent problem with cash shops, especially ones that interfere with game mechanics.

It just reads like they have an expectation that F2P cash shops led to P2W.
"I don’t want to say this is out-and-out ‘Pay to Win’, but this is a concerning trend to say the least."

And while I agree that EA is certainly going this route, to say its an "inherent problem" is a stretch.

[Kelimbror]

And while I agree that EA is certainly going this route, to say its an "inherent problem" is a stretch.

I don't really think that it is though...because again the inherent problem is with Cash Shops themselves, not necessarily F2P. I've posted an article from October on that site, which you will mostly disagree with, but I want to highlight the last statement which really is an undeniable truth.

Obviously, a game or project designed with flaws to frustrate or coerce players into paying was not designed specifically with artistic integrity in mind.

I think this, more than anything, is why inherently a Cash Shop in tandem with F2P is an issue.

[RoninaThorstone]

I think this, more than anything, is why inherently a Cash Shop in tandem with F2P is an issue.

That is certainly true of swtor's model. However, the less restrictive models aren't nearly so coercive or in your face about the fact you aren't a subscriber.
I don't recall getting pop ups in other games every time I walked into a rest area saying "HEY. YOU AREN'T A SUBSCRIBER. NO RESTED FOR YOU".
I think they would improve their model simply by removing that alert lol.

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 09:22 PM ----------

Also, if they had design their game as f2p from the start they, most likely, wouldn't have put out such a crap model.

[Kelimbror]

That is certainly true of swtor's model. However, the less restrictive models aren't nearly so coercive or in your face about the fact you aren't a subscriber.*snip* Also, if they had design their game as f2p from the start they, most likely, wouldn't have put out such a crap model.

I mean I think it's especially true for SWTOR, thus why we started having things as ridiculous as a damned ugly mount reskin with Christmas lights draped on it. But I haven't seen a game yet, even GW2, that can keep true to the game's integrity with a cash shop. I agree that GW2 implemented theirs properly, but they still had to step outside of the bounds of the game to do so.

I will even fault WoW for the same thing. Regardless of how awesome I think the pets and mounts are, it's still contrived for the sake of making money. Nothing inherently in a cash shop is designed with the integrity of the game as a priority. It's a bottom line.

PS Revan outfit - Amazeballs

[RoninaThorstone]

Nothing inherently in a cash shop is designed with the integrity of the game as a priority. It's a bottom line.

Ah! We are thinking about it in two different ways.
I am looking at F2P + Cash shop not being inherently doomed to P2W (on a slippery slope)
I agree that the items in the cash shop are not designed with the intergrity of the game as a priority... And that is okay with me so long as it doesn't hurt the game. And there are those models and games that do not.

[Kelimbror]

Ah! We are thinking about it in two different ways.
I am looking at F2P + Cash shop not being inherently doomed to P2W (on a slippery slope)
I agree that the items in the cash shop are not designed with the intergrity of the game as a priority... And that is okay with me so long as it doesn't hurt the game. And there are those models and games that do not.

Yes, but that's exactly where the slippery slope comes in to play. Since the integrity of the game is already a grey area, the potential to teeter over the edge to where game design is actually hindered by the Cash Shop is a great risk. This is what naturally leads into games becoming Pay to Win.

We are both seeing the article from different directions, but going to the same conclusion. It's much easier to say that compromised game integrity -> pay to win is a higher probability than simply cash shop -> pay to win. You are right that there are plenty of examples where the shop doesn't hurt the game, maybe even provides a little extra fun if you can afford it.

But even some lofty examples (imo) are starting to head for the slope. LotRO recently got reamed because they tested out this hobby horse on their beta. It's not a mount, is completely lore breaking, and the best part....they wanted to charge $50 for it. And they had the audacity to actually ask their community to give them feedback on this idea...and had to reiterate that the price was for real.

Even after being publicly humiliated and having to admit that the got the negative feedback they expected, their vague statements made it sound like they were merely gauging 'how much is too much' so that they can charge as much as possible and still sell it. Clearly a lot of companies are going the wrong direction with Cash Shops and I don't see the trend reversing any time soon.

Luckily their F2P model is still fairly well to me...regardless of the fact you can earn their coins through grinding, you actually get a permanent value for any money you give them. To me that is a hallmark of better F2P. Weekly passes are a shame.

[Geekzilla]

Though I should say their team creating the things that should be on the market, the new versions of gear, mounts, and pets, are doing a great job. That should honestly be their focus...unfortunately it's not going to be.

I had no problem with the cartel market at first.

When they announced the new space missions and ship gear, I was looking forward to it. Then I saw the prices of the new ship gear. 500 Fleet Coms for a single item. 150 Daily Coms. 300K credits. 700 Fleet Coms for the recipes, and you can only get recipes for a few pieces. These are some extreme prices for something that's for a minigame. Plus, I'm an altoholic, so multiply that all by 12. OK, so not 12 yet, some of my toons aren't 50.

Fast forward to the 1.6 patch. The missions have arrived, as has the gear. And Lo and Behold, the ship gear is also in the Cartel Market. I first though that I'd just spend my leftover points on the gear. Then I paused, and thought "Is THAT why this gear is so expensive, to encourage just that decision?" I then logged out and haven't been back.

I'm not pissed about any direct P2W potential, I just can't get this suspicion out of my mind, enough so that I get aggravated every time I even think about logging in.

[RoninaThorstone]

I'm not pissed about any direct P2W potential, I just can't get this suspicion out of my mind, enough so that I get aggravated every time I even think about logging in.

Which is the danger of P2W. There's a serious diminishing return involved.

Each step deeper into P2W you alienate those who don't have cash more and more.
Even those who have the money ask themselves, "Why should I have to (or feel forced to) pay for this?" and quit.
When a MMO loses players it causes it to lose more as the social networks and queue times degrade.

[Kelimbror]

I'm not pissed about any direct P2W potential, I just can't get this suspicion out of my mind, enough so that I get aggravated every time I even think about logging in.

It's honestly not just a suspicion. It was a conscious design decision. Just like the initial restriction on action bars and other crappy things is to drive you to a sub or the Cartel Market.

[Geekzilla]

Which is the danger of P2W. There's a serious diminishing return involved..

Allow me to be more specific, as these are two very closely related concerns. To me, the problem isn't that you can buy the best gear in game in the cartel market since it's only a minigame that could provide a trickle of commendations that would affect the "real" game. This gear is available in game, so it's also not like they're selling stuff that is better than anything that isn't in the cash shop. The problem to me is that they seem to be deliberately making it hard to get said gear in game in order to encourage cash shop purchases.

[Argroth]

Yeah, that sentence tainted the rest of the article for me.

Paired with


It just reads like they have an expectation that F2P cash shops led to P2W.
"I don’t want to say this is out-and-out ‘Pay to Win’, but this is a concerning trend to say the least."

And while I agree that EA is certainly going this route, to say its an "inherent problem" is a stretch.

You just jumped to that conclusion because I've bashed awful F2P model of swtor you seem to love so much in other threads.

To be fair I hate all cash shops (vanity or not) and most F2P models but they are not always for the same reason. The danger of a cash shop making a F2P game worse is sometimes a factor. In the case of Swtor both of those 2 issues working together make it the overall worst model I've ever seen but they can cause separate issues.