Understanding Convenience Not Advantage

Let me state for the record that the F2P conversion in general makes me sad and that I am ‎strongly opposed to making achievement items available for $ purchase and to making the 10 ‎second cd power/morale pots available solely for $ purchase. This post is my attempt to take a ‎step back and think critically about what Turbine is doing and how to interpret how it has ‎been marketing the Turbine store. ‎

‎1. The "Advantage" in Convenience Not Advantage doesn't mean "no advantage in combat." ‎It's meaning is limited solely to "no advantage compared to players who choose not to make $ ‎purchases." I'm not sure if Turbine ever said that they would not sell combat advantage. If they ‎did, well then I think it would be fair to say that was a mistake or a falsehood. If not, then the ‎misinterpretation by portions of the playerbase was regrettable (although I would say that it ‎should have been foreseen and addressed more carefully by Turbine). Players can still debate whether combat advantage should be ‎sold for $, what I am discussing here is what Turbine means by Advantage.‎

‎2. The "Convenience" in Convenience Not Advantage is not limited to reducing the grind of ‎time consuming but relatively "easy" activities, such as grinding virtues or reputation. It also means the ‎convenience of obtaining items through methods other than gameplay. ‎

‎3. Turbine is prepared to sell for $ items that may be difficult to obtain in-game, such as boss ‎housing trophies and things that would otherwise drop from a boss chest. Whether these ‎items constitute "premium" items is a matter of interpretation, and we can expect that Turbine ‎will push the envelope of what the playerbase will accept. I expect that there are diverse ‎opinions among the playerbase as to what is acceptable.‎

‎4. As the converse of #3, Turbine is also prepared to take the position that if something is ‎available in-game, but only by means of a low percentage drop only from a fellowship encounter ‎boss chest (i.e., a stat tome), then said item is therefore "available in-game" for purposes of the ‎marketing statement that everything important that is offered in-store will also be obtainable in-‎game. The key issue appears to be how "readily obtainable" an item is in-game, and again we ‎can expect that Turbine will push the envelope of what the playerbase will accept, and also that ‎there will be a diversity of player opinions on this point.‎

‎5. In apparent contradiction to the marketing statement that everything important that is offered ‎in-store will also be obtainable in-game, Turbine is in fact prepared to make combat advantage ‎items available only in-store. However, Turbine has also taken the position that the ability to ‎accrue Turbine Points (TP) via gameplay means that in-store items are also in effect available in-‎game. Although there has been a fair amount of backlash to what I like to call the Turbine Point ‎Transitive Property (TPTP), I think there is actually some merit to Turbine's position. Bear with me on this, as a ‎proper explanation is a bit lengthy. ‎

With SoM, Turbine introduced a new system of quest rewards. Every quest gives Malledhrim ‎leaves rather than a selection of from 2 or 3 items. Players now collect leaves and spend them in ‎the Malledhrim store on the items they want. In addition to other methods, you can collect six leaves in less than 30 minutes running the Gathburz and Ost Galadh ‎repeatable quests, and you can do that every day. For purposes of this post I will stipulate that ‎Malledhrim leaves are the paradigm for "readily obtainable in-game." ‎Here is the crux: Is there any functional difference between (a) offering Malledhrim leaves for $ ‎purchase in-store, compared with (b) making Malledhrim gear available in-store and allowing ‎you to exchange Malledhrim leaves for TP? I assert that there is no meaningful distinction, and ‎the only real issues are the $ cost of Malledhrim leaves in scenario (a), and the Malledhrim ‎leaf:TP exchange rate compared to the $:TP exchange rate in scenario (b). Going back to the ‎TPTP, Turbine is allowing players to earn TP in-game by deed completion, which is a ‎more broadly available (not the same as readily obtainable) method of obtaining the currency than quests tied to a particular region. ‎

Consequently, I am prepared to accept that the TPTP is functionally equivalent to selling ‎Malledhrim leaves for $, subject to the following issues: (i) the rate at which TP can be earned ‎in-game by deed completion and any other non-$ methods, (ii) how that compares to the $:TP ‎exchange rate, and (iii) how that is calibrated with the TP cost of items in-store. We also have the game ‎balance question of the assumed average TP expenditure around which Turbine calibrates the ‎difficulty of various aspects of gameplay (which is a long-term, evolving issue). These questions are in ‎addition to the issues for debate I noted in items 1, 3 and 4 above. For example, using my ‎Malledhrim leaf analogy, how would the playerbase react to the sale for $ of DG ‎Medallions? How about $ for Rift Gems or BG Coins (the kind obtainable from specific bosses)? ‎

In closing, I believe that the integrity of the F2P "hybrid" model, long term viability of the game, etc. - whatever lens you are viewing this through - will stand or fall based on how the majority of the ‎playerbase responds to the manner in which Turbine handles the following:‎

A. Definition of "premium" and degree of "premiumness" of items available for $ purchase.‎
B. Definition of "readily obtainable" and degree that premium items available in-store are ‎readily obtainable by traditional in-game methods. ‎
C. Calibration of rate of accrual of TP through non-$ methods with $:TP exchange rate and TP ‎cost of premium items.‎
D. Assumed TP expenditure around which various elements of gameplay is balanced.‎

In my personal opinion, Turbine is not off to a good start with the 10 second cd power pots, the stat tomes and the sale of achievement items.