CNBC Host Thinks Charging For Virtual Game Items Is Fraud
Posted by David Savage at 2:09 AM Nov 24, 2009
 |
The discussion was going well until Sebastien mentioned Playfish's business model of charging players for virtual items in the game that enhance their experience. 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. I can only assume Sebastien was fuming after that degrading statement towards his incredibly successful company. (rant and video after the jump)
As a player of free online games, I enjoy the ability to play them cost-free, but also having the option to enhance my experience through virtual items, upgrades, currency, etc. 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.
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.
Check out the full video below:
Comments
"I am not being dishonestly extorted out of my money either."
Maybe not with Playfish's stuff, but...
Posted 11/24/2009 at 03:21:34 AMhttp://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.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 08:03:16 AMThat wasn't so bad. He's just surprised that the model works. There's no insinuation of fraud imo.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 01:52:45 PM"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.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 01:57:57 PMThere'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?
Posted 11/24/2009 at 02:21:40 PM(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.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 02:43:07 PMi dont like buying virtual items in a game. i like purchasing a game.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 02:46:26 PMit's sad that people spend real money to buy virtual stuff :(
Posted 11/24/2009 at 03:38:56 PMHe 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.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 03:39:16 PMActually, 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.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 03:46:45 PMJoystick ... 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 .......
Posted 11/24/2009 at 04:11:17 PMI 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.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 04:18:05 PMIf 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.
Posted 11/24/2009 at 04:56:21 PMI got a good laugh out of your post boybunny. Not because it was intelligent, but retarded.
Posted 11/25/2009 at 04:36:54 PMThe 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....
Posted 11/26/2009 at 02:48:42 PMI want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
Posted 12/25/2009 at 07:14:02 AMAnd you et an account on Twitter?