Why would I need to "Let it go"? Its a discussion.
People care about what other people spend their time and money on, because in certain circumstances the things that those people choose to spend their time and/or money on has a negative impact on said people. Whether the impact is direct or not, nor whether it is tangibly measurable or not does not make a difference. In other words, simply because one person feels a particular aspect is unimportant, it does not mean everyone must also feel that way.
Furthermore, this is not a discussion until you begin to acknowledge all valid responses to your initial question, including those you may not agree with.
While I agree with your assessment that sometimes what other people spend time and money on does have an effect on others the problem with that idea is it is near impossible for one person to stop all the people out there willing to spend money in what one calls a frivilous manner and it isn't very reasonable anyway some people think wasting time and money on video games is frivilous and we as gamers would certainly not want those people telling us what to do with our money so what makes us think as gamers we are any more right to tell others how to spend theirs?
At the end of the day one can never be right in telling someone how to spend their entertainment dollars no matter what side of an argument you fall on and as such it only leaves the person "fighting" a losing war no matter how honorable his intentions may be.
Which is a reasonable view. One cannot expect to influence others to do what they want.
I think that a lot of the frustration is misunderstood. It isn't necessarily that certain MMO gamers 'hate' all F2P and their players. It's moreso that they lament the fact that they do not have the same breadth of options as they once did, and wish there were more options.
Furthermore, there also seems to be a double standard. On one hand, the pro RMT/F2P crowd proclaims that anyone who does not like such, to pick a game that is not F2P or does not contain RMT. Which yes, it's perfectly reasonable, and that's the philosophy I perscribe to. I don't like those models so I avoid them. Yet, why is it then common for those same players to be labeled as 'rabid F2P and RMT haters that can't see logic', when and if these P2P players become upset when the game they have been playing suddenly shifts to become either F2P or contain RMT?
In my view, players have every reason, and right, to be upset if the game they have been playing, suddenly experiences a fundamental shift, such as converting to a F2P model from P2P, or suddenly containing RMT where none had previously existed. It is those two circumstances that spawn the most vitriol from the supposide F2P and RMT "haters". These people simply want to retain the games in their current incarnation, and do not seek to force F2P games to become P2P games, like so many F2P players seem to be trying to push for. It's s sickening double standard.
To clarify as well, as I realize now that it was rather unclear... that when I was speaking of people having different perspectives of what impacts them, and what does not, I meant to refer mroe upon the "vanity" versus "advantage" arguement in RMT. Many who are okay with RMT, state that they are okay with it so long as it does not sell 'advantages' in game mechanics to players, because that is ultimately what they care about. My statement was merely to allude to the fact that some players of MMOs do hold a reasonable amount of value in such vanity items, to the point where such items sold in part, or exclusively, via RMT is a problem for them. In other words, the line of acceptability in RMT varies per personal perspective, and each view is not wrong, they are all valid.
Oh, you mean the others that you pat on the back and send them on their way after they agree with you?
Nope, quite a number of people have voiced all sorts of views.
Why do you continue to troll the threads if they make you so angry?
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Actually what doesn't click is that you're not operating in a vacuum. No one is. Individual choices add up to the options we all get down the road, which is why some people care what you do with your time and money.
Your presumption that it has zero impact is flatly wrong on multiple levels.
Very well said.
I don't think it was. My choice to buy a fluffly bunny pet has nothing to do with you. The idea that "development will change" is reaching, it was allready changed, it changes all the time, what makes this time the larger evil?
It’s also a level of impact that most will never ever care, or know, or be impacted by. So I don’t understand the statement, nor the why its being inflated in severity.
You miss the big picture. If you buy a fluffy bunny, it doesn't affect me; it affects the developers, who say to themselves "geez, we can make a lot of money making fluffy bunnies." Then they spend more time making fluffy bunnies and less time on everything else. Then some other developers will look over the fence and see them making money on fluffy bunnies and they'll start thinking about selling their own fluffy bunnies.
This isn't some fanciful idea, this has already happened. Look at the permeation of item malls in MMOs in the past few years. It's a cash cow, I'm not surprised that so many have adopted it. Now stop acting like your choice to dump money into a game doesn't affect me. It already has.
Honestly I think you miss the big picture here, mmo's are video games nothing more and nothing less but until the inception of mmo's video game developers didn't have a way to achieve the holy grail of business, a product that you can sell to the public and then keep your hands in the consumers pocket on after. There are games like GW1 and GW2 pretty recent mmo's who have somehow survived without charging even a sub fee but "mmo purists" seem to overlook the fact that alternate methods of making money exists for these companies without keeping a hand in our pocket.
This debate boils down to what I feel many of them do fear of being left behind. If these companies are finding this much success with these cash shops which is something one may not agree with the fear of seeing the genre pass them by often results in foolish attempts at lashing out at the willing public instead of directly to the devs (which for the sake of this argument wouldn't matter anyway since the opinion is in the minority).
It's alot like the whole situation in the NBA recently Lebron left Cleveland high and dry and the hurt was so deep that most didn't/don't care about how their actions make them look they just want to hurt someone who they feel may be responsible for hurting them. At the end of the day I say have some pride in yourself if the genre is moving beyond ones sensibilities don't sit around and whine about it show strength and move on from that particular game or even the genre if it needs to be done but fighting other gamers is a losers proposition.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Why would I need to "Let it go"? Its a discussion.
People care about what other people spend their time and money on, because in certain circumstances the things that those people choose to spend their time and/or money on has a negative impact on said people. Whether the impact is direct or not, nor whether it is tangibly measurable or not does not make a difference. In other words, simply because one person feels a particular aspect is unimportant, it does not mean everyone must also feel that way.
Furthermore, this is not a discussion until you begin to acknowledge all valid responses to your initial question, including those you may not agree with.
While I agree with your assessment that sometimes what other people spend time and money on does have an effect on others the problem with that idea is it is near impossible for one person to stop all the people out there willing to spend money in what one calls a frivilous manner and it isn't very reasonable anyway some people think wasting time and money on video games is frivilous and we as gamers would certainly not want those people telling us what to do with our money so what makes us think as gamers we are any more right to tell others how to spend theirs?
At the end of the day one can never be right in telling someone how to spend their entertainment dollars no matter what side of an argument you fall on and as such it only leaves the person "fighting" a losing war no matter how honorable his intentions may be.
Which is a reasonable view. One cannot expect to influence others to do what they want.
I think that a lot of the frustration is misunderstood. It isn't necessarily that certain MMO gamers 'hate' all F2P and their players. It's moreso that they lament the fact that they do not have the same breadth of options as they once did, and wish there were more options.
Furthermore, there also seems to be a double standard. On one hand, the pro RMT/F2P crowd proclaims that anyone who does not like such, to pick a game that is not F2P or does not contain RMT. Which yes, it's perfectly reasonable, and that's the philosophy I perscribe to. I don't like those models so I avoid them. Yet, why is it then common for those same players to be labeled as 'rabid F2P and RMT haters that can't see logic', when and if these P2P players become upset when the game they have been playing suddenly shifts to become either F2P or contain RMT?
In my view, players have every reason, and right, to be upset if the game they have been playing, suddenly experiences a fundamental shift, such as converting to a F2P model from P2P, or suddenly containing RMT where none had previously existed. It is those two circumstances that spawn the most vitriol from the supposide F2P and RMT "haters". These people simply want to retain the games in their current incarnation, and do not seek to force F2P games to become P2P games, like so many F2P players seem to be trying to push for. It's s sickening double standard.
Have you actually read some of the debates about this topic on these forums? While your quite reasonable explanation is certainly one fact of it it isn't the only one. Anyone who is familiar with mmorpg and this discussion can certainly recall hearing statements like "I don't like f2p games because then just anybody can get in and play." and many other lame elitist excuses like that. Another problem with this debate is that there aren't nearly as many people "pro f2p" as you may think, think about it for the most part many people myself included only stand up because the changes don't bother us not because we are "pro f2p". I currently play LOTRO and I'm certainly nervous that the f2p model may bring some negative changes but I understand the genre's need to grow (just like I finally understood why I had to pay fifteen bucks a month for an mmo). A company continuing to keep it's hands in ones pockets is going to do it anyway they can and at the end of the day the same dessenters who didn't have a problem paying fifteen bucks a month for all these years have only themselves to blame for the changes we are seeing. These folks should be taking these issues up with the devs and suits of the companies who own the games and not other game players who are just trying to enjoy themselves.
Another problem with your response is how exactly "It's moreso that they lament the fact that they do not have the same breadth of options as they once did, and wish there were more options.". As I understand it while a person can play one of Turbines games for free one can also continue to pay the sub fee of 15 a month and nothing really changes you still have access to all the content plus you get a certain amount of points to spend on other smaller more insignificant items in game, how exactly is that limiting options especially when it so obviously increases options.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Oh, you mean the others that you pat on the back and send them on their way after they agree with you? Why would they have a problem with you?
The only people who have a problem with what you are doing, are the ones who you single out for not agreeing with you.
Kindly stop trolling these forums with your self serving posts hidden under thinly veiled "discussions" that you twist to fit your own personal agenda.
You are not discussing anything. You may as well stick your fingers in your ears and scream about how other people are 'infringing on you' for not completely siding with your views. It will have the exact same effect.
Honestly I see the same behavior coming from you. But instead of showing compromise and empathy, I see irritation and snarkness. That's not to say that Mrbloodworth isn't showing his share of it either, but it does prove just how unwilling both sides are to coming to a middle ground. Sort of like this topic and how others feel about players spending money in cash shops. Or the idea of past MMOs adopting some cash shop items to their P2P playerbase.
We all know the damage that would happen if you took a windshield baking in the hot sun for hours and threw a picther of ice cold water on it. It's sort of like how I see both sides trying to prove their point to the other. This is why when I see companies like WoW introduce vanity cash shop items or SOE and Turbine take older MMOs and turn them into F2P models, I don't fly off in a tantrum. They are gradually introducing things to their players to make the transition from one model to another, so when the next P2P MMOs comes along, they don't have to worry about losing too many players if they choose to subscribe to their new MMO.
Honestly I've been following the eastern F2P market for a while and I see the issues of westerns gamers doing more to shape the way our F2P cash shops operate compared to the game killing shops of our eastern brothers and sisters. But because I've experience eastern cash shops in the past I can see these changes moreso than players who come in hating any form of F2P from the get go.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I don't have a "side". I'm just the one that posed the question. So I am evil, and must hack, cheat, and love me some epic mounts from crags list.
Obviously.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Oh, you mean the others that you pat on the back and send them on their way after they agree with you? Why would they have a problem with you?
The only people who have a problem with what you are doing, are the ones who you single out for not agreeing with you.
Kindly stop trolling these forums with your self serving posts hidden under thinly veiled "discussions" that you twist to fit your own personal agenda.
You are not discussing anything. You may as well stick your fingers in your ears and scream about how other people are 'infringing on you' for not completely siding with your views. It will have the exact same effect.
Honestly I see the same behavior coming from you. But instead of showing compromise and empathy, I see irritation and snarkness. That's not to say that Mrbloodworth isn't showing his share of it either, but it does prove just how unwilling both sides are to coming to a middle ground. Sort of like this topic and how others feel about players spending money in cash shops. Or the idea of past MMOs adopting some cash shop items to their P2P playerbase.
We all know the damage that would happen if you took a windshield baking in the hot sun for hours and threw a picther of ice cold water on it. It's sort of like how I see both sides trying to prove their point to the other. This is why when I see companies like WoW introduce vanity cash shop items or SOE and Turbine take older MMOs and turn them into F2P models, I don't fly off in a tantrum. They are gradually introducing things to their players to make the transition from one model to another, so when the next P2P MMOs comes along, they don't have to worry about losing too many players if they choose to subscribe to their new MMO.
Honestly I've been following the eastern F2P market for a while and I see the issues of westerns gamers doing more to shape the way our F2P cash shops operate compared to the game killing shops of our eastern brothers and sisters. But because I've experience eastern cash shops in the past I can see these changes moreso than players would come in hating any form of F2P from the get go.
Awesome post and something I've seen myself I've played a few of the Asian grinders and in general the cash shops are not much like those in our western games and I can concede the point that the line may be blurred but I refuse to just buy into the idea that the problems plauging the grinders are going to automatically effect us in the west just the same.
Now again the other problem I have with this argument is for all the western mmo's out there making these changes subbing is still an option and as such would not change ones personal play in any way shape or form, more so in a game like LOTRO without a fully fleshed pvp element what one player does/have has no effect on another player.
Let's consider if I went into LOTRO as a f2p player I'm going to be charged some certain amount of money to access quests or just be forced to grind mobs for no reason other than traits, if I'm not mistaken pvmp will also cost extra then I'll have to buy all the trinkets that some people fear will influence a pay to win model which will wind up costing me waaaaay more than the fifteen dollars a premium player paid to have access to everything I just mentioned. In essence the system itself is policing itself in that not subbing will cost far more than just subbing for access to these items. And if a person can't even afford the fifteen a month to sub I highly doubt they'll be shelling out some fifty bucks a month to "pay to win".
We as a community just have to watch these changes and see how they play out before starting the whole "know it all" "need to be right" debates we have about these things. Right now off hand I can only think of one company with a cash shop that supports the argument that cash shops can infact be a bad thing and that is STO, but honestly we all know they are doing things vastly different than all the other games moving towards hybrid payment models.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Oh, you mean the others that you pat on the back and send them on their way after they agree with you? Why would they have a problem with you?
The only people who have a problem with what you are doing, are the ones who you single out for not agreeing with you.
Kindly stop trolling these forums with your self serving posts hidden under thinly veiled "discussions" that you twist to fit your own personal agenda.
You are not discussing anything. You may as well stick your fingers in your ears and scream about how other people are 'infringing on you' for not completely siding with your views. It will have the exact same effect.
Honestly I see the same behavior coming from you. But instead of showing compromise and empathy, I see irritation and snarkness. That's not to say that Mrbloodworth isn't showing his share of it either, but it does prove just how unwilling both sides are to coming to a middle ground. Sort of like this topic and how others feel about players spending money in cash shops. Or the idea of past MMOs adopting some cash shop items to their P2P playerbase.
We all know the damage that would happen if you took a windshield baking in the hot sun for hours and threw a picther of ice cold water on it. It's sort of like how I see both sides trying to prove their point to the other. This is why when I see companies like WoW introduce vanity cash shop items or SOE and Turbine take older MMOs and turn them into F2P models, I don't fly off in a tantrum. They are gradually introducing things to their players to make the transition from one model to another, so when the next P2P MMOs comes along, they don't have to worry about losing too many players if they choose to subscribe to their new MMO.
Honestly I've been following the eastern F2P market for a while and I see the issues of westerns gamers doing more to shape the way our F2P cash shops operate compared to the game killing shops of our eastern brothers and sisters. But because I've experience eastern cash shops in the past I can see these changes moreso than players who come in hating any form of F2P from the get go.
I think you make a very valid point that the two sides do take it to extremes. I have tried to show compromise and empathy. I am fine with F2P and cash shops as long as it doesn't provide an advantage over the P2P user. The problem is when I and others try to explain this we are told we are being "vain" or "trolling".
If poeple want F2P because it fits better with their financial or gaming needs, then I don't understand why a F2P option with a cash shop that does not sell P2W items is so offensive to supposed F2P players. The only assumption I can make from the responses this idea generate is that certain F2P players don't want to have F2P but instead want to be able to P2W.
I actually am ok with DDO's F2P as well as the announced F2P addition to EQII. I still have concerns of what it could mean in the future that I have listed before. What I don't understand is why just because my concers are against Cash Shop (note not F2P but Cash Shops) and what precedence it could set for developers, some how my concerns are considered non-valid and trolling.
So I guess I can change my stance from I am against F2P to I am against P2W. Maybe that will ease some of the negative responses to my point of view. Who knows.
Especially when it usually has zero impact on you?
Simple question.
Human 'by god' nature.
What I like is how everyone worries about balance and fairness in what is essentially war games.
Like the UN should be all: "Palestinians this week were given a +2 defense increase to offset the new 'boiling pot' tactic used by the Israeli military."
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
Originally posted by RunstalThe problem is when I and others try to explain this we are told we are being "vain" or "trolling".
Well then I offer my apology then. I’m not the first to point out that vanity is a large reason why people have issue with some types of items; those that take issue with them are most likely influenced by this. Even if its because they “earned” it threw game play while others bought it, its still vanity, and yes, your vanity is damaged when you take issue with it, because its petty, cant you feel good you did it “the hard way” if that how you feel? As for trolling, the moment you make it personal, yes, I will call it like I see it; many have attempted to derail the thread instead of talking about the subject. I don’t have much patience with this type of poster.
Some of my comments are to play devils advocate, some are to show that you may not realize the influences of motivations; none should be taken personal in this discussion.
So, if you feel slighted, I'm sorry you feel this way, but this an internet forum about entertainment products, like games, don't take them so persionaly. It won't matter tomarrow.
I also dislike "P2W" as you put it. But it also happens to not be what we are talking about. I simply asked why people care what others do. It’s a question, not an endorsement or political stance. P2W happens to fall under the catagory of things that do affect others, unless there is no PvP in the game.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Oh, you mean the others that you pat on the back and send them on their way after they agree with you? Why would they have a problem with you?
The only people who have a problem with what you are doing, are the ones who you single out for not agreeing with you.
Kindly stop trolling these forums with your self serving posts hidden under thinly veiled "discussions" that you twist to fit your own personal agenda.
You are not discussing anything. You may as well stick your fingers in your ears and scream about how other people are 'infringing on you' for not completely siding with your views. It will have the exact same effect.
Honestly I see the same behavior coming from you. But instead of showing compromise and empathy, I see irritation and snarkness. That's not to say that Mrbloodworth isn't showing his share of it either, but it does prove just how unwilling both sides are to coming to a middle ground. Sort of like this topic and how others feel about players spending money in cash shops. Or the idea of past MMOs adopting some cash shop items to their P2P playerbase.
...
I had always figured that my personal policy of, "I'll stick to my P2P non-RMT MMOs and you can stick to your F2P RMT MMOs," to be a fair compromise. If a P2P game comes along and decides to include a cash shop as part of it, that's fine too, it will just be another one I will avoid to play because it goes against my personal playstyle. I don't hate the developers or those who choose to play those games at all.
The only time I truly have a problem is when a game I play that previously began with a particular payment model, specific P2P with no RMT, suddenly changes, then I have a problem, because the choice I had previously been offered is being taken away from me. But again, I don't hate people who like such a change, that's just their preference. I just feel it's underhanded of the developers to do such a thing.
Despite my views however, there are those who constantly argue that the addition of RMT to previously "pure" P2P games is that 'it's no big deal because it's just vanity items that don't effect the game'. Well to me it is a big deal, because I value vanity items in part to the virtual world aspect of an MMO, and the addition of any measure of RMT breaks that immersion for me. Which again, is why I choose to play "pure" P2P MMOs.
I could argue up and down the semantics between other of why RMT item "A" is or isn't acceptable, but RMT item "B" isn't. That's not the point. The point is that for me personally, any RMT in a game is too much RMT, that's where the line is for me. I don't need to justify why I feel that way anymore than someone who prefers apples over oranges, or vice versa, would. But to continue on from that conclusion, I also don't try to force other games to comply to my preference, nor do I hate those who prefer that design of game. I simply choose the MMOs that fit within what fits my preference, and I get bothered if my choice is taken away, just like anyone else would under similar circumstances.
So again I'll state that I fail to see how my stance is unreasonable.
So again I'll state that I fail to see how my stance is unreasonable.
I don't think anyone said it was.
Do you care if others play the game for more hours of the day than you?
Topic isn't only about RMT.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
So again I'll state that I fail to see how my stance is unreasonable.
I don't think anyone said it was.
Do you care if others play the game for more hours of the day than you?
Topic isn't only about RMT.
I honestly don't care how much time someone sinks into a game, that's their choice.
It only ever starts to become an issue, in part, through game mechanic design. In other words, some games punish players who invest more time by artificially slowing them down. Conversely there's others that punish casual gamers by requiring ridiciculous time investments to advance at a reasonable pace, or are simply designed in a way where casual gamers cannot get close to keping up. Both extremes are not necessarily wrong, they are a matter of preference. The only time I ever get frustrated about the topic is when there is a fundamental design philosophy shift. In other words, a game that was hardcore gonig casual, or a casual game going hardcore mid lifespan.
My stance on things is pretty much that any preference in gameplay is valid per each person, and people should simply choose what fits their preference. It only ever becomes an issue when options start to get taken away when developers decide to make fundamental shifts to major aspects of a game.
It crossed my mind to ask others why it bothers them. Makes for an interisting topic.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Are you referring to something in particular with this post?
If not I would also like to ask why people want to ban marijuana, gay marriage, the sale of alcohol on Sunday, etc. when it has no effect on them.
well technically it does. indirectly.
Not to go off topic.
But no, no it doesn’t. It is simply someone trying to impose there own will on others when it has zero impact on others, usually because they themselves do not have the strength character, or willpower to avoid such temptations. Its paranoia to think it "indirectly" affects you, by virtue of it being not impact full, or so statistically improbable its not worth worrying about.
Just like some gamers.
I think you've defeated your own argument here.
It seems you're saying the game hasn't changed, by adding some feature, if players can avoid temptation.
But if you've added "tempetation" as you call it, obviously you HAVE changed the game.
It's like saying, yes we added perma death.
But if you pretend you didnt' die, we changed nothing!
You're saying, I added temptation to the game, but if you pretend I DIDN"T ad temptation, then the game hasn't changed!
Yes, if you pretend a change didn't happen, then it doesn't affect you. If the ad perma death, and you pretend you didn't die and start all over again, and you pretend your first level character is actually 50th, then of course the change didnt' affect you.
But, you probably dont' have much of a sense of reality in that case.
The game has changed - if you want to talk in those literal terms - but the game to you hasn't changed if you can resist that new temptation. It's not "pretending." Temptation is something intangible (it is determined by your wants and your strength of character), while perma-death is quite tangible indeed (your character is dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. There's nothing abstract about that).
if the game hasn't changed, then there is no new temptation.
If there is a new temptation, then the game has changed.
I'm using the OP's word, "temptation".
But in reality it's not a "temptation".
it's a game feature.
Games dont' ad "temptations" they ad features.
Either the feature exists, or it doesn't.
If you ad a feature, you change the game, simple as that.
If the game is changed, it is changed for ALL players, not just players that use the feature.
The game design IS what it IS.
The player has ZERO control over the game design.
You can delete your character every time you die, as if there was a perma death feature in the game.
You could say, well, if you "resist the temptation" to revive that character, it's a perma death game!
No, it is you pretending you are playing a perma death game, but in fact the game has no such feature.
Same with a cash shop.
You could say "well, if you don't buy anything from the cash shop, it's not a cash shop game!"
No, that's you pretending a cash shop is not in the game, even though one exists.
You cannot change the game design.
Only the developer can ad or take away features. The features exist, whether you use them, or not.
Sure, you can pretend the game has not changed, but YOU have no control over that. Your imagination doesn't make a cash shop exist, or not exist.
I think you went to crazy town again.
I think it's irrefutable.
If you ad a cash shop to a game that did not have a cash shop before, you have changed the game.
You're argument is, just pretend the game hasn't changed.
In that case you can play Hello Kitty, and pretend you're playing Darkfall.
Why pretend?
The game is what it is.
If it has a cash shop, it's a cash shop game.
If it has perma death, it's a perma death game.
If it doesn't have a cash shop and charges a sub, then it's a P2P game.
Why would you pretend a game is different than thte actual features that are in it?
If it has a cash shop, and you don't like cash shops, then don't pretend there's no cash shop, play a P2P game.
If you like cash shops, play a cash shop game.
If you like forced grouping, play a forced grouping game.
If you like solo friendly games, play a solo friendly game.
if you can't find a game you like, don't play.
How about you play a P2P game, and pretend your 14.95 a month is really being spent in a cash shop? There you go! Now every game is a F2P game with a cash shop, just for you!
News Flash!
WoW is free to play with a cash shop. If you pretend your sub actually paid for items!
Same as your argument.
A cash shop doesn't affect you. If you pretend it isn't there!
Comments
I think you meant to say...
"I need to feel superior so I insult people so I can remain superior."
Oh and to the actual question. I don't. People like games or movies or tv shows I don't like. good for them.
The Stranger: It's what people know about themselves inside that makes 'em afraid.
Which is a reasonable view. One cannot expect to influence others to do what they want.
I think that a lot of the frustration is misunderstood. It isn't necessarily that certain MMO gamers 'hate' all F2P and their players. It's moreso that they lament the fact that they do not have the same breadth of options as they once did, and wish there were more options.
Furthermore, there also seems to be a double standard. On one hand, the pro RMT/F2P crowd proclaims that anyone who does not like such, to pick a game that is not F2P or does not contain RMT. Which yes, it's perfectly reasonable, and that's the philosophy I perscribe to. I don't like those models so I avoid them. Yet, why is it then common for those same players to be labeled as 'rabid F2P and RMT haters that can't see logic', when and if these P2P players become upset when the game they have been playing suddenly shifts to become either F2P or contain RMT?
In my view, players have every reason, and right, to be upset if the game they have been playing, suddenly experiences a fundamental shift, such as converting to a F2P model from P2P, or suddenly containing RMT where none had previously existed. It is those two circumstances that spawn the most vitriol from the supposide F2P and RMT "haters". These people simply want to retain the games in their current incarnation, and do not seek to force F2P games to become P2P games, like so many F2P players seem to be trying to push for. It's s sickening double standard.
To clarify as well, as I realize now that it was rather unclear... that when I was speaking of people having different perspectives of what impacts them, and what does not, I meant to refer mroe upon the "vanity" versus "advantage" arguement in RMT. Many who are okay with RMT, state that they are okay with it so long as it does not sell 'advantages' in game mechanics to players, because that is ultimately what they care about. My statement was merely to allude to the fact that some players of MMOs do hold a reasonable amount of value in such vanity items, to the point where such items sold in part, or exclusively, via RMT is a problem for them. In other words, the line of acceptability in RMT varies per personal perspective, and each view is not wrong, they are all valid.
Nope, quite a number of people have voiced all sorts of views.
Why do you continue to troll the threads if they make you so angry?
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Honestly I think you miss the big picture here, mmo's are video games nothing more and nothing less but until the inception of mmo's video game developers didn't have a way to achieve the holy grail of business, a product that you can sell to the public and then keep your hands in the consumers pocket on after. There are games like GW1 and GW2 pretty recent mmo's who have somehow survived without charging even a sub fee but "mmo purists" seem to overlook the fact that alternate methods of making money exists for these companies without keeping a hand in our pocket.
This debate boils down to what I feel many of them do fear of being left behind. If these companies are finding this much success with these cash shops which is something one may not agree with the fear of seeing the genre pass them by often results in foolish attempts at lashing out at the willing public instead of directly to the devs (which for the sake of this argument wouldn't matter anyway since the opinion is in the minority).
It's alot like the whole situation in the NBA recently Lebron left Cleveland high and dry and the hurt was so deep that most didn't/don't care about how their actions make them look they just want to hurt someone who they feel may be responsible for hurting them. At the end of the day I say have some pride in yourself if the genre is moving beyond ones sensibilities don't sit around and whine about it show strength and move on from that particular game or even the genre if it needs to be done but fighting other gamers is a losers proposition.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Have you actually read some of the debates about this topic on these forums? While your quite reasonable explanation is certainly one fact of it it isn't the only one. Anyone who is familiar with mmorpg and this discussion can certainly recall hearing statements like "I don't like f2p games because then just anybody can get in and play." and many other lame elitist excuses like that. Another problem with this debate is that there aren't nearly as many people "pro f2p" as you may think, think about it for the most part many people myself included only stand up because the changes don't bother us not because we are "pro f2p". I currently play LOTRO and I'm certainly nervous that the f2p model may bring some negative changes but I understand the genre's need to grow (just like I finally understood why I had to pay fifteen bucks a month for an mmo). A company continuing to keep it's hands in ones pockets is going to do it anyway they can and at the end of the day the same dessenters who didn't have a problem paying fifteen bucks a month for all these years have only themselves to blame for the changes we are seeing. These folks should be taking these issues up with the devs and suits of the companies who own the games and not other game players who are just trying to enjoy themselves.
Another problem with your response is how exactly "It's moreso that they lament the fact that they do not have the same breadth of options as they once did, and wish there were more options.". As I understand it while a person can play one of Turbines games for free one can also continue to pay the sub fee of 15 a month and nothing really changes you still have access to all the content plus you get a certain amount of points to spend on other smaller more insignificant items in game, how exactly is that limiting options especially when it so obviously increases options.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Honestly I see the same behavior coming from you. But instead of showing compromise and empathy, I see irritation and snarkness. That's not to say that Mrbloodworth isn't showing his share of it either, but it does prove just how unwilling both sides are to coming to a middle ground. Sort of like this topic and how others feel about players spending money in cash shops. Or the idea of past MMOs adopting some cash shop items to their P2P playerbase.
We all know the damage that would happen if you took a windshield baking in the hot sun for hours and threw a picther of ice cold water on it. It's sort of like how I see both sides trying to prove their point to the other. This is why when I see companies like WoW introduce vanity cash shop items or SOE and Turbine take older MMOs and turn them into F2P models, I don't fly off in a tantrum. They are gradually introducing things to their players to make the transition from one model to another, so when the next P2P MMOs comes along, they don't have to worry about losing too many players if they choose to subscribe to their new MMO.
Honestly I've been following the eastern F2P market for a while and I see the issues of westerns gamers doing more to shape the way our F2P cash shops operate compared to the game killing shops of our eastern brothers and sisters. But because I've experience eastern cash shops in the past I can see these changes moreso than players who come in hating any form of F2P from the get go.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I don't have a "side". I'm just the one that posed the question. So I am evil, and must hack, cheat, and love me some epic mounts from crags list.
Obviously.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Awesome post and something I've seen myself I've played a few of the Asian grinders and in general the cash shops are not much like those in our western games and I can concede the point that the line may be blurred but I refuse to just buy into the idea that the problems plauging the grinders are going to automatically effect us in the west just the same.
Now again the other problem I have with this argument is for all the western mmo's out there making these changes subbing is still an option and as such would not change ones personal play in any way shape or form, more so in a game like LOTRO without a fully fleshed pvp element what one player does/have has no effect on another player.
Let's consider if I went into LOTRO as a f2p player I'm going to be charged some certain amount of money to access quests or just be forced to grind mobs for no reason other than traits, if I'm not mistaken pvmp will also cost extra then I'll have to buy all the trinkets that some people fear will influence a pay to win model which will wind up costing me waaaaay more than the fifteen dollars a premium player paid to have access to everything I just mentioned. In essence the system itself is policing itself in that not subbing will cost far more than just subbing for access to these items. And if a person can't even afford the fifteen a month to sub I highly doubt they'll be shelling out some fifty bucks a month to "pay to win".
We as a community just have to watch these changes and see how they play out before starting the whole "know it all" "need to be right" debates we have about these things. Right now off hand I can only think of one company with a cash shop that supports the argument that cash shops can infact be a bad thing and that is STO, but honestly we all know they are doing things vastly different than all the other games moving towards hybrid payment models.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
I think you make a very valid point that the two sides do take it to extremes. I have tried to show compromise and empathy. I am fine with F2P and cash shops as long as it doesn't provide an advantage over the P2P user. The problem is when I and others try to explain this we are told we are being "vain" or "trolling".
If poeple want F2P because it fits better with their financial or gaming needs, then I don't understand why a F2P option with a cash shop that does not sell P2W items is so offensive to supposed F2P players. The only assumption I can make from the responses this idea generate is that certain F2P players don't want to have F2P but instead want to be able to P2W.
I actually am ok with DDO's F2P as well as the announced F2P addition to EQII. I still have concerns of what it could mean in the future that I have listed before. What I don't understand is why just because my concers are against Cash Shop (note not F2P but Cash Shops) and what precedence it could set for developers, some how my concerns are considered non-valid and trolling.
So I guess I can change my stance from I am against F2P to I am against P2W. Maybe that will ease some of the negative responses to my point of view. Who knows.
Human 'by god' nature.
What I like is how everyone worries about balance and fairness in what is essentially war games.
Like the UN should be all: "Palestinians this week were given a +2 defense increase to offset the new 'boiling pot' tactic used by the Israeli military."
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
Well then I offer my apology then. I’m not the first to point out that vanity is a large reason why people have issue with some types of items; those that take issue with them are most likely influenced by this. Even if its because they “earned” it threw game play while others bought it, its still vanity, and yes, your vanity is damaged when you take issue with it, because its petty, cant you feel good you did it “the hard way” if that how you feel? As for trolling, the moment you make it personal, yes, I will call it like I see it; many have attempted to derail the thread instead of talking about the subject. I don’t have much patience with this type of poster.
Some of my comments are to play devils advocate, some are to show that you may not realize the influences of motivations; none should be taken personal in this discussion.
So, if you feel slighted, I'm sorry you feel this way, but this an internet forum about entertainment products, like games, don't take them so persionaly. It won't matter tomarrow.
I also dislike "P2W" as you put it. But it also happens to not be what we are talking about. I simply asked why people care what others do. It’s a question, not an endorsement or political stance. P2W happens to fall under the catagory of things that do affect others, unless there is no PvP in the game.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
I had always figured that my personal policy of, "I'll stick to my P2P non-RMT MMOs and you can stick to your F2P RMT MMOs," to be a fair compromise. If a P2P game comes along and decides to include a cash shop as part of it, that's fine too, it will just be another one I will avoid to play because it goes against my personal playstyle. I don't hate the developers or those who choose to play those games at all.
The only time I truly have a problem is when a game I play that previously began with a particular payment model, specific P2P with no RMT, suddenly changes, then I have a problem, because the choice I had previously been offered is being taken away from me. But again, I don't hate people who like such a change, that's just their preference. I just feel it's underhanded of the developers to do such a thing.
Despite my views however, there are those who constantly argue that the addition of RMT to previously "pure" P2P games is that 'it's no big deal because it's just vanity items that don't effect the game'. Well to me it is a big deal, because I value vanity items in part to the virtual world aspect of an MMO, and the addition of any measure of RMT breaks that immersion for me. Which again, is why I choose to play "pure" P2P MMOs.
I could argue up and down the semantics between other of why RMT item "A" is or isn't acceptable, but RMT item "B" isn't. That's not the point. The point is that for me personally, any RMT in a game is too much RMT, that's where the line is for me. I don't need to justify why I feel that way anymore than someone who prefers apples over oranges, or vice versa, would. But to continue on from that conclusion, I also don't try to force other games to comply to my preference, nor do I hate those who prefer that design of game. I simply choose the MMOs that fit within what fits my preference, and I get bothered if my choice is taken away, just like anyone else would under similar circumstances.
So again I'll state that I fail to see how my stance is unreasonable.
I don't think anyone said it was.
Do you care if others play the game for more hours of the day than you?
Topic isn't only about RMT.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
I honestly don't care how much time someone sinks into a game, that's their choice.
It only ever starts to become an issue, in part, through game mechanic design. In other words, some games punish players who invest more time by artificially slowing them down. Conversely there's others that punish casual gamers by requiring ridiciculous time investments to advance at a reasonable pace, or are simply designed in a way where casual gamers cannot get close to keping up. Both extremes are not necessarily wrong, they are a matter of preference. The only time I ever get frustrated about the topic is when there is a fundamental design philosophy shift. In other words, a game that was hardcore gonig casual, or a casual game going hardcore mid lifespan.
My stance on things is pretty much that any preference in gameplay is valid per each person, and people should simply choose what fits their preference. It only ever becomes an issue when options start to get taken away when developers decide to make fundamental shifts to major aspects of a game.
i don't care. why do you care if we care?
It crossed my mind to ask others why it bothers them. Makes for an interisting topic.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
i see. seems like it's made a little flame war though. >.>
Today is a good day to start spelling "their" correctly. Once is a typo. Twice is lack of comprehension.
Just sayin'...
Flame wars exist everywhere, especially in the political realms that run our countries....so why wouldn't your expect them on the internet per say.
PIRATE LORDS
Not as much fun as playing a Pyro in TF2 though. Or is it?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I wouldn't really know since I prefered Day of Defeat and Battlefield > TF
PIRATE LORDS
I think it's irrefutable.
If you ad a cash shop to a game that did not have a cash shop before, you have changed the game.
You're argument is, just pretend the game hasn't changed.
In that case you can play Hello Kitty, and pretend you're playing Darkfall.
Why pretend?
The game is what it is.
If it has a cash shop, it's a cash shop game.
If it has perma death, it's a perma death game.
If it doesn't have a cash shop and charges a sub, then it's a P2P game.
Why would you pretend a game is different than thte actual features that are in it?
If it has a cash shop, and you don't like cash shops, then don't pretend there's no cash shop, play a P2P game.
If you like cash shops, play a cash shop game.
If you like forced grouping, play a forced grouping game.
If you like solo friendly games, play a solo friendly game.
if you can't find a game you like, don't play.
How about you play a P2P game, and pretend your 14.95 a month is really being spent in a cash shop? There you go! Now every game is a F2P game with a cash shop, just for you!
News Flash!
WoW is free to play with a cash shop. If you pretend your sub actually paid for items!
Same as your argument.
A cash shop doesn't affect you. If you pretend it isn't there!
Especially when it usually has zero impact on you?
Thats my problem with it right there. What a lame Multiplayer experience when people have zero impact on each other. So very lame.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Oh please!!
they care. Thats the reason why they whine so much about new MMOs not having a Harsh DP.
Well you have access to the harshest DP (Delete your character on death)
is that hard to self apply if you want Harsh DP? nope,
but those same people only want Harsh DP when it affects others
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
i'm trying to figure out when it was i said i didn't expect to see a flame war on the internet....oh! that's because i didn't say that.
so what are you talkin about?