"I am not being dishonestly extorted out of my money either."

Maybe not with Playfish's stuff, but...
http://consumerist.com/2009/11/mafia-wars-ceo-brags-about-scamming-users-from-day-one.html

I can see both sides of the argument. I personally won't pay for downloadable content and I'll never pay a video game subscription fee (which is why I'll never play World of Warcraft), but I understand why people do and I don't condemn them for doing so. It's their money.

That wasn't so bad. He's just surprised that the model works. There's no insinuation of fraud imo.

"Dennis is just jealous he didn't think of it first."

He's jealous? Really?

Gosh, yes, that must be it. He's raging with jealously ... that, or he is simply not tapped into the video game culture and doesn't fully understand this business model or the fact that variations on it are now very common.

Nah, it's got to be jealousy. Good argument.

There's no way I would pay for in-game content, Xbox is trying to do that with their stupid costumes, and add-ons for their avatars. Why buy something that you'll never actually own, and what happens when the server is off or down. or even worse what happens when you want to get rid of the item, can you sell it and get your money back?

(while explaining who plays his game) "a mom or dad on their commute to work". Is he promoting what I think he is? Around the 1:30 point in the video.

Anyway, to make a game successful you have to make your business model work. Their game is to make it free IN THE BEGINNING(instead of paying $60) up front. If you in fact enjoy the game enough, maybe you will start buying stuff for real money. I guarantee items are below a dollar every time, probably 25 cents or so. I've played one of the games (Restaurant City) for a while and still have yet to pay anything and still love the game. There are just those hardcore fans who are willing to pay a few cents for a virtual item.

Regardless hate if or not, these type of games are what get nerds addicted to them. It is a never-ending social experience and their fans love it.

i dont like buying virtual items in a game. i like purchasing a game.

it's sad that people spend real money to buy virtual stuff :(

He wasn't being condescending. Their business model is "quite a racket". His expression of that, in that way, may sound condescending, but I don't think it was an outright sneer. I think it was more of a statement of the reality. Selling completely virtual items is a good business to be in if you can.

Actually, free users are at a disadvantage if it comes down to PvP. Also, some games, like Wizard101, want you to pay to unlock more quests on top of having to purchase some in-game items. So the game essentially ends before the end-game if you can't afford to pay to play.

Joystick ... he "practically implied", not "practically inferred". To infer is similar to "to assume" and to imply, what you meant, is similar "to say". You can use those substitutions to decide which is the right one to use, if need be.

Fellow "commenters" ... the word is simply "regardless", not "irregardless".

If there were such a word, "irregardless" would likely mean "NOT regardless". Irresponsible, for example, means NOT responsible.

It would seem that unless the virtual "chits" are passed off as something else, there is no "fraud", nor is there anything untoward about the transaction. The emperor, when he got his new clothes made of invisible thread, apparently thought he was getting something, but the purchasers of virtual merchandise know exactly what they're getting ... same as when they buy or participate in a game ... 1's and 0's.

Now if you want to buy an invisible game, I've got a web site .......

I have always believed that people that buy virtual ingame items are mentally retarded. The author of this story has not changed my opinion in the slightest.

If you have ever purchased any digital media, from a television show to an MP3, then you understand the basic utility of virtual goods. It is a digital good, useful in a specific entertainment context.

I got a good laugh out of your post boybunny. Not because it was intelligent, but retarded.

The free to play games market is based in the optional Charging For Virtual Game Items... And i agree with this is very great, but pay to play games charging For Virtual Game Items is really bad....

I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?

johnny said:

it's sad that people spend real money to buy virtual stuff :(

I find it amusing that you think your money is real. Or based on something real. Or backed by something real. Actually, I find it downright hilarious.

I couldn't stomach reading through ALL these comments, but no one I saw mentioned the fact that some purchases are made with the explicit knowledge that you are giving someone money for the sole purpose of giving someone money. Duder McGuy makes a cool free game that you enjoy, so you spend 5 bucks "buying an in-game item" as a way of supporting Duder McGuy. No I am not saying this is always the case or even the majority of cases, but it does happen.

So, for all of those who don't understand why someone would buy a virtual item, have you never bought any piece of entertainment? a video game (pay 60 up front, and you can do stuff in our virtual world!)? or a piece of very expensive clothing? What about diamonds? Sure, they look nice, and you can show them off, but how is that different from buying a virtual item? what do you have over these virtual buyers? They show off their items as well, just in a virtual community as opposed to a face-to-face experience. Is it an ego thing? And, to refute the inevitable argument of "worth" (aka, you can sell the items bought in the "real" world for a certain price, giving it strict monetary value. Sentimental value is not taken into account due to both real and virtual items having this sort of worth), people sell their online accounts all the time. I'm not saying it's as good a buy as water or food, but don't look down on people who spend their money on this form of entertainment.

Kneale's complaints and skepticism are valid, although at the same time it's worth pointing out that the majority of transactions nowadays are for "virtual" content with limited ownership whether it be itunes, kindle, etc.

At face value all of these things do seem nuts, but there's underlying logic.

I think the headline is hugely misleading.

Much ado about nothing. I was disappointed, I was expecting to be outraged!

I think perhaps in order to even the playing field a bit, so to speak, they should allow users more of an opportunity to do the same thing that they're doing to the users. Now it may be one thing to simply buy an item instead of going through a lot of trouble to get said item. What about the people that do go through a lot of trouble to get that item, why shouldn't they just as easily be able to sell it to somebody else for less than they sell it on the game or sell it back to the game itself? I think the idea that people that can make accounts on warcraft and such and sell them for a profit have the right idea. If the game makers can do it, then the players should be able to as well.

"One of the hosts, Dennis Kneale, was scoffing while Sebastien was speaking and said "Wow..." in shock.

After he finished his explanation, Kneale said "you guys got quite a racket going on", practically inferring that Playfish has something shady going on behind their business."

What?! Where the FUCK would you get an idea like that? Are you fucking paranoid? I think you're looking too much into it, and seeing attacks that weren't actually there.

"No one forces me to buy them, I buy them because I've enjoyed the free game and I want to make the purchase. Free users are not at a disadvantage either and I am not being dishonestly extorted out of my money either. "

In denial much?

"I find it insulting that a CNBC host would act so unprofessional and closed-minded when talking to a business professional who just made more money then he'll ever see in his life. Oh, that's it; Dennis is just jealous he didn't think of it first."

Yeah, I think that confirms your paranoia.

While those hosts DID seem to have a mocking tone in their voices (perhaps thinking online games and taking them seriously to be silly), I found no indication of any attacks against this game at all.

I find the title of this article to be very misleading. I was expecting to hear someone ranting about how these types of games are designed to be addictive, and then sucking out all your money because it's impossible to get past level 20 or so unless you pay to play (because everything is impossibly difficult unless you have special items that are only available by paying for them with real money, etc.). But instead it's just a couple of hosts interviewing two people about a certain game, and what their target demographics are.

Buying in-game items would not make you retarded because its all on what you count as "fake" you might say "wow you just bought that 5 dollar sword in that game, what a retard. ITS NOT EVEN REAL!" it is real actually, it would be like buying a scope airsoft gun for example. you pay money to enhance you experiance of the game. Virtual items are not Actually fake. they serve a perpose in the game. what the point of buying $200 desighned boots? all they do is look a little better than normal boots. buying a virtual armor or weapons for example will Help your character kick more ass.
Video games are meant to be addicting but it all falls back on your if your playing a Free game with add-ons that cost money. YOU choose to buy that because YOU would like to have a better experiance playing the game. you cant say that videos games get you addicted and eat your money because its your choice. do you say "its the crack's fault im addicted, blame it!" The tactics they use for video games is only half of it, the other half is you and what you choose to do.

*Schoff* Wow, you really are hooked. You are hooked and they have you believing you're not, that you're in control and choosing to purchase their non-existent DLC. That's like an alcoholic saying he's "choosing" to buy another 12-pack of beers.

Judgmental much? Stop assuming that everyone who pays to play an online game is a mindless addict. If that's how they choose to spend their money for entertainment, who are you to judge them on it? "non-existent" dlc...right. If it enhances one's experience of the game, and it is worth the price to them, I don't see how that is "non-existent". Since you assume he's an addict, I'll assume you're a douche bag. I believe I have more evidence for my assumption than you do for yours.

Can something be real that does not have mass? Virtual items are more like an idea with very set limitations then an real object.

It's not about real or virtual. It's about the values that those objects have. Value is set by humans, so just because you value it as worthless does not mean everyone else does. These values change over time based on what is in demand. If downloadable content enhances an experience, it has some sort of value (otherwise they would not create it). Real or virtual (going by your definition) does not matter, the value does. Also, i believe you are thinking of most of these virtual items as doing completely nothing for you. If it enhances your experience whatsoever, its valuable proportional to the change in your experience.

David is a douche... he inflated that exchange quite a bit. What a dickhead.

Some games are free to play and need the money from in game items. However World Of Warcraft has made millions (maybe even billions?) but now they're selling some in game things like mounts and pets which are ridiculously overpriced.