Conversation: Micro Transactions in Rust

Hopefully we can be adult with this?

My personal feelings on the whole Micro Transaction bit is this. If your game is free, fine. If someone already pays for your game, then it comes across as double dipping. Again, this is my personal feelings. I understand and respect others feel differently. I just feels dirty to me. I lost interest after TF2 went that direction even though it was free and more people were playing, Nether has and it really hasn’t helped them, CounterStrike:GO any interest I had was lost after seeing this new method Valve has embraced (afraid what L4d3 will be like). I have seen the incredible creations people have made for Dota2, but then find they actually have no interest in the game itself, versus just wanting to make money from asset sales.

The best system I have seen is the one Epic is doing for Unreal Tournament 4. That the game will be completely free and not gimped. People though can sell mods/levels/characters in Epics store or choose to give away their creations for free. I.E. unlike other free games, it wont be pay to win, as individual servers will still have the choice of what to allow/not.

I mean I can see the other side as it would help servers keep funded as people could buy one offs that only work on their server. If the person gets the blueprint for a paid object, if they are killed after creating it, anyone can take the creation but that original person will always have that blueprint. I have seen enough to trust that Facepunch won’t allow things that would unbalance the game or be out of place in the world.

What are your thoughts both good and bad on such systems? (Yes, I realize this has been discussed before, but every thread I saw was always whining and/or trolling).

No… Just no…

you cant stop mods from doing it, its unfortunate but i saw many people try and pocket money from selling items on a server. people made plugins to literally give items upon paypal money received.

Wasn’t that whole uproar with Minecraft updating its terms of use dealing with exactly that type of issue you describe?

not sure, but im pretty sure i sent a message to garry on this stance, i can’t stand servers doing it, it creates bad servers, bad admins. people just leech a plugin, host it on their 10$ server and pocket some cash. if minecraft updated these terms, facepunch should join em!

Microtransations are a pox.

No

No

No

Saying no does no good if you don’t give your reasoning. Its going to happen.

Just trying to think of ways to balance both side of the stance on this.

personally i agree. if it is a free game, then fair enough to charge for extra content.

in terms of rust, we have (IMO) paid for access to the alpha phase of the game. we get to play with it while its being made, we get to give our collective input into the direction we want the game to go, and we get to keep it at the end(supposedly it will stay at the same price for people who purchase after completion, though some alphas double/triple in price once completed; i know the teams stance on this was that it would remain the same, but that may change). so i feel that i have paid for the eventual completed content. i would expect the ability to play vanilla rust without any extra investment or feel cheated.

that said, i have paid money to TF2 for extras like hats, special weopons that i couldn’t wait to find etc. the main thing is that the paid additions should not be mandatory elements of the game, and should not grant a gamebreaking advantage. things like special clothes, facial features, and skins for normal weopons are never going to be a problem, regardless of if they are bought or earned. it’s rocket launchers, cars and generators that can only be used by that player because they paid money for it that will be the problem; things that destroy the balance of the game purely because some little squeaker burns a hole in his mommy’s credit card.

Hmm that is something. I don’t think Garry can have a marketplace thats exactly like TF2 without changing some dynamics of the game as you suggest. As per the keys and such TF2 does.

Anything that can be sold would seem to me to have to rely on physical items separate from the player that can be raided. It going to be a quagmire if Garry allows people to sell facial/body distinctions. All games that allow such at least allow players to earn credits to modify their characters physical appearance. Hence why it would be best to just only allow add-ons.

Also will servers be forced to accept all items from the market? Will players be locked out of some of their purchases on different servers? Meaning say for whatever reason the admin doesn’t want a certain selection of clothing to be enabled. Like a Gilly suit, as they think it would give too much advantage to players with it on. Who wins out? The player or the server?

that’s kind of the “balance” issue i was talking about. personally i would have a few things;

  1. purchased weopons/clothes can be crafted by default by the player who bought them; you would sell them as a default blueprint for that player, not bound by server. they can also be looted normally, or given away as anything else in the game. the game “killing floor” does this by allowing you to “unlock” special weopons with real money for purchase in game with game money (you earn “cash” each round). then you can do what you want with them, and if you die, they drop to the ground for other players to loot.

  2. character customisation should be kept client side, ie dictated outside of the server, in options or wherever makes sense. this should not be possible to restrict by the server as it is purely character image, and not gameplay affecting. this would be a customisation plugin, and just add to the variables you can use to make your character “you”.

  3. servers should be able to restrict “non-vanilla” options… just because you paid for a “rusty pickaxe” mod doesn’t mean you can use it on bob’s server. but if the items are not gamebreaking i doubt they will be disabled, it will lose them players.

  4. a marketplace is a must anyway to some degree. if you are talking mods such as oxide, the cost should only be on the server owner as it is how they want to run their server. now if they choose to password protect that server, and charge $$ for that password (or some other means to pass on the cost to the player base) that’s up to them. again, it comes down to how they want to run their server. but for individual player purchases such as skins and weopons, i think you need to have some means to A) purchase them and B) sell them. it only makes sense to have that same system used to sell peer to peer if you don’t want your beard anymore;)

i guess that’s the other thing. would a modification (lets use the ghille suit as an example) be for sale to players or servers? or both? would i buy my ghille suit and craft it in game for all my mates, or would i find the server that says “AU.Noob friendly.Ghille Craft.PVP” and know that everyone can make one from the get go? i think both could work, as different mod licenses.

Selling little things in game.
That is exactly why I don’t play TF2.
Too much random shit in the game with all their subtle influences.
Also, I don’t buy digital hats for my digital penis.
What kind of fool would?
Wait… forgot where I was…

I honestly believe this game should not have micro transactions. Garrys mod doesn’t so why should this one?

Hate hate hate hate hate paying anything other than upfront for a game. Especially hate pointless DLC that should be included in the initial release, e.g. extra playable factions in an RTS.

Bring back the good old days, pay up front and that’s it.

I can see why the devs love it though- look at Planetside 2, people drop 80 bucks straight off for station cash that buys you 3 or 4 guns. It’s daylight robbery.

Rant over. Please Garry, just NO.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying for an item that’s already obtainable via in-game methods. All you’re doing is getting it faster than normal. The only kind of micro transaction that is bad is the kind that gives unfair advantages over people who don’t pay. As long as garry stays away from that and keeps any and all micro transactions to a purely cosmetic or convenience type level, there shouldn’t be anything to worry about.

It really is the best system for everyone; it gives players with extra spending cash a way to further support the developers of the games they love so much. It doesn’t penalize the players who only wanted to play the base game without any further investment. And most interestingly, it could provide a sort of deterrent for cheaters. People are far less likely to give in to the urge to cheat if they run the risk of losing an extra 50-80 dollars on top of that 20 dollar base fee.

On a side note, someone above mentioned the cost of the game will stay at 20 dollars. I really hope they change their mind and spike up the price to 60 dollars. I’m fairly certain the experimental branch is about to start encountering more hackers the closer they get to baseline, so this could serve as another sort of deterrent to some cheaters.

We’re not too keen on microtransactions either. We’re going to try to do it without them.

Ideally you’ll get items as you play, as you do in TF2. You’ll be able to trade those items (or put them on the marketplace and sell them). This system is good for everyone involved because everyone wins.

The marketplace system is just the perfect system for handling how blueprints work, with trading etc. We’re not that interested in the whole microtransactions thing.

Just for the record, I don’t mind if you sell little hats, weapon reskins, or whatever else, Dota 2-style.

I dont agree with that either. Rust is not the type of game that selling skins would work. IF facepunch decide to add even the smallest thing on a store people would go rampage thinking this game will turn on a pay 2 win game. Honestly there are TONS o games out there that are just like that.

I dont think its the right time to think about a store right now. The game is still adding a lot of content and we cant say for sure what’s going to be added. Until they reach their baseline and get the game running and squash those pesky bugs i dont think they should focus on store or anything else.

The steam market is nice. Even though i would love a trade option inside the game ex :

  • Put a sack on the ground
  • Store the item you want to trade
  • Give the sack
  • Take the other guy sack with the item he want to trade.
  • Shoot him and take your sack back ( j/k )

Not sure yet if Harry is talking about steam trading market or steam workshop. Need more information from Barry about this and how it could/would work.

If you are worried about the game income… honestly if EAC ban at least 1/4 of the hackers that are on legacy rust right now i assume they would earn twice as much they already earned -_-. Seriously… i know some people tha bought the game arround 4 times already.

Kinda sounds like the Diablo 3 marketplace? Or am I wrong on this?

I was about to chide people for letting themselves be trolled by yet another blog/tweet/trello gag from the FP dev team… but then I saw Garry’s post about “trying” not to do microtransactions, and a “marketplace”. Now I don’t know what to think. More trolling, taken to the ummmph degree?

“Try” not to do one of the most hated, heinous things in online games over the past decade, as though it’s a bug that’s just going to pop up in the code and we might not be able to get it out?

A “marketplace”? On Rust? We must be talking about some stall someone built in a player-made town, because a magical inexplicable cross-server system of transferring goods between characters that have never met is the kind of thing I’d expect from the modding community that gave you teleportation and insta-kits. Perfect for trading blueprints? What, from the comfort of your tower? Like /econ? That certainly fits with the brutal, no-rules-of-interaction-but-what-you-make emergent gameplay of Rust.

I’m still going to go with this being another obvious gag. Like the invasion of the giant steampunk robots.