I can understand F2P titles. But the trend nowadays is to add a cash shop ON TOP of a box purchase, it seems. I think it's just wrong to ask us to pay "again" for a game that we already bought, but maybe thats just me.
About the "money VS time" argument... lol. You dont see people advocating steroids in the olympic games because they dont have time to train 10 hours a day. It amaze me how people can justify themselves by saying "its fine, I dont have time to play much, its fair!". (Oh, and what about someone that do have time AND money? )
Anyway. I really dont like where the trend is going. See D3 RMAH and GW2 cash shop. Next gen of MMO will be even worse than that. Sad.
But that's exactly what a subs game does.
Personally its wrong to have a sub and cash shop!
Currently playing- SWG PreCU & GW 2 Have tried WoW, AoC, & Vanguard, SWG:NGE, GW, LOTRO & SWTOR Best MMO: SWG Worst MMO: SWTOR
I never have any problem with the idea of paying for advantages. Usually i am on the other side playing for free. And if so, i think it is only fair for those who subsidize my gaming with some advantages. No problem at all.
And how about if you paid 60$ for the game or were paying a monthly sub too?
I can understand F2P titles. But the trend nowadays is to add a cash shop ON TOP of a box purchase, it seems. I think it's just wrong to ask us to pay "again" for a game that we already bought, but maybe thats just me.
About the "money VS time" argument... lol. You dont see people advocating steroids in the olympic games because they dont have time to train 10 hours a day. It amaze me how people can justify themselves by saying "its fine, I dont have time to play much, its fair!". (Oh, and what about someone that do have time AND money? )
Anyway. I really dont like where the trend is going. See D3 RMAH and GW2 cash shop. Next gen of MMO will be even worse than that. Sad.
Actually it is worse in that D3 is not a MMO so the real money is leaking into single player games.. plus D3 will have a server and that is blurring the difference between single player and MMO even more. Pretty much a case of Companies worshipping at the throne of More Money, in my humble opinion.
I personally dont like cash shops. I can understand F2P titles. But the trend nowadays is to add a cash shop ON TOP of a box purchase, it seems. I think it's just wrong to ask us to pay "again" for a game that we already bought, but maybe thats just me. About the "money VS time" argument... lol. You dont see people advocating steroids in the olympic games because they dont have time to train 10 hours a day. It amaze me how people can justify themselves by saying "its fine, I dont have time to play much, its fair!". (Oh, and what about someone that do have time AND money? ) Anyway. I really dont like where the trend is going. See D3 RMAH and GW2 cash shop. Next gen of MMO will be even worse than that. Sad.
But that's exactly what a subs game does.
Personally its wrong to have a sub and cash shop!
A sub or box purchase pays for access to the training facilities which all athletes need if they want to be athletes, how much they use them (effort) is proportional to their end skill level, steroids give the advantage for cash.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.
Advantage (n.) (cash shops)
Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:
Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)
I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.
That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise. Thanks for reading!
Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages. What about those who get advantages from having more game time? If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well. There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.
After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences? Mental differences?
There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages. Address all of them OR none of them.
WHY?
In boxing people are put into weight classes, but they aren't put into speed/accuracy classes.
Games/sports/contests are supposed to be measures of certain abilities/qualities of the participants but they are not neccesarly supposed to be a measure of ALL abilities/qualities of the particpants. Those are commonly acceptable societal norms.
Chess is supposed to be a measure of the players skill and experience at the game along with certain analytical abilities. If you have poor analytical skills then you may indeed be at a disadvantage against a player who has good ones, but that is an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the paradigm of the game as that is one of the qualities of the players that the game is DESIGNED directly to measure.
At the same time, one player may be physical weaker then the other...but in the paradigm of Chess that is NOT deemed to be an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the game and the rules are designed to account for that. They do not allow for one player to keep his opposition from moving a piece through the use of physical force. Chess is NOT, therefore designed to be a measure of the players physical strength.
If we change the game to arm wrestling, for example, the situation is reveresed. Arm Wrestling is designed to be primarly a measure of the participants physical strength. Lesser analytical skills are not intended to be a significant disadvantage and the rules are formulated to account for that.
The OP is simply asking the question whether we believe a players purchasing power SHOULD BE a quality that is DIRECTLY MEASURED in an MMO and the rulesets of the game designed to account for such.
You may feel free to disagree, but many of us here feel that it should NOT....and we decline to participate in games who's rules are designed contrary to that position....lobby for the creation of games with rulesets that support our preferences...and decline to participate in games with people who use such as an advantage.....NOT because we seek to destroy others enjoyment of the game, but simply because it destroys OURS.
That is a perfectly legitimate position to take.... and qualitatively no different then the person who says "I do not believe physical strength should have any roll in the game of chess" ... or perhaps even more accurately ... "I want to play Chess...not Arm Wrestle.... it's fine if you want to Arm Wrestle... but our preferences are incompatible...so we should be playing DIFFERENT games.... as I don't want to participate in a game that measures physical strength, thanks."
The only time I have a problem with cash shops is when they offer items NOT AVAILABLE in-game, or earnable by any other method (such as say golden ammo) that can be used against me/adversley affect my character specifically.
I dont particularly like it when the sell usable equipment(such as armor/weapons) unless its very standard(not rare/epic).
I was upset by Eve and thier monocles, but really cosmetic things I couldnt care less. If someone wants to pay money to paint thier tank green, or ride that rainbow pony, I couldnt care less. If they want bonus experience gains, I couldnt care less. a %experience/gold/fame gain doesnt effect my character in anyway. Sure they level faster, but all it means is theyll reach max faster. Same as someone who say gamed 24hrs a day for a month. Would you really be able to compete vs that type of player(I think not).
This isnt something that will be tied to a single definition, as its so variable from person to person and from game to game. I dont have a problem with it, it allows the consumer to support the business if they think the item is worth it.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.
Advantage (n.) (cash shops)
Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:
Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)
I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.
That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise. Thanks for reading!
Actually, the amount is relevant. It's in fact so relevant as to determine if someone will answer yes or no to your question. Would you really be against the devs selling a +0.1% damage boost in the cash shop? Really? or 1%? That's equal to 0 or no change in any MMO combat system. Or speaking about experience boosts, not only the amount is relevant, but the experience system and game model. For example 25% experience boost in say WoW or any other old MMO may be signifcant and a clear advantage, but, the same 25% boost in a modern game like GW2 is a non issue, and irrelevant, since the end-game starts at level 1 and the leveling curve is linear. Therefore applying the logic of your definition fails, as it can't be justly aplied to all types of MMO's out there. Therefore I can not answer your question because..
Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in WoW/LOTRO/AoC/.. is an unfair advantage? Yes, because the endgame starts at max level.
Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in GW2 is an unfair advantage? No.. because it does not matter. I have no reason to rush to max level.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.
Advantage (n.) (cash shops)
Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:
Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)
I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.
That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise. Thanks for reading!
Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages. What about those who get advantages from having more game time? If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well. There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.
After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences? Mental differences?
There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages. Address all of them OR none of them.
WHY?
In boxing people are put into weight classes, but they aren't put into speed/accuracy classes.
Games/sports/contests are supposed to be measures of certain abilities/qualities of the participants but they are not neccesarly supposed to be a measure of ALL abilities/qualities of the particpants. Those are commonly acceptable societal norms.
Chess is supposed to be a measure of the players skill and experience at the game along with certain analytical abilities. If you have poor analytical skills then you may indeed be at a disadvantage against a player who has good ones, but that is an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the paradigm of the game as that is one of the qualities of the players that the game is DESIGNED directly to measure.
At the same time, one player may be physical weaker then the other...but in the paradigm of Chess that is NOT deemed to be an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the game and the rules are designed to account for that. They do not allow for one player to keep his opposition from moving a piece through the use of physical force. Chess is NOT, therefore designed to be a measure of the players physical strength.
If we change the game to arm wrestling, for example, the situation is reveresed. Arm Wrestling is designed to be primarly a measure of the participants physical strength. Lesser analytical skills are not intended to be a significant disadvantage and the rules are formulated to account for that.
The OP is simply asking the question whether we believe a players purchasing power SHOULD BE a quality that is DIRECTLY MEASURED in an MMO and the rulesets of the game designed to account for such.
You may feel free to disagree, but many of us here feel that it should NOT....and we decline to participate in games who's rules are designed contrary to that position....lobby for the creation of games with rulesets that support our preferences...and decline to participate in games with people who use such as an advantage.....NOT because we seek to destroy others enjoyment of the game, but simply because it destroys OURS.
That is a perfectly legitimate position to take.... and qualitatively no different then the person who says "I do not believe physical strength should have any roll in the game of chess" ... or perhaps even more accurately ... "I want to play Chess...not Arm Wrestle.... it's fine if you want to Arm Wrestle... but our preferences are incompatible...so we should be playing DIFFERENT games.... as I don't want to participate in a game that measures physical strength, thanks."
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.
Advantage (n.) (cash shops)
Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:
Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)
I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.
That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise. Thanks for reading!
Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages. What about those who get advantages from having more game time? If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well. There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.
After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences? Mental differences?
There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages. Address all of them OR none of them.
This.
How that?That's like saying you work much more and much harder than me but i have the same salary as you.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post.
This isn't how a discussion works, if a person can't use their own rationale to approach a topic, rather they are held to a strict and forced rule of the topic, there's no discussion that will come of it, only you pushing your subjective reasoning on others.
The point of this thread is not to discuss the goal post, but rather how you would feel about cash shops selling advantages as defined in this thread. Please stay on topic. There are a myriad of other threads out there (especially on the Guild Wars 2 forum) about what does and doesn't qualify as buying an advantage, so I suggest going there if you want to argue about that.
That's just the thing even on this topic there's another side of the story as that would be the reasoning in voting yes or no to begin with. The question isn't is this okay, it's is this okay to you, that answer will vary based on what you view as an advantage over another or an "advantage" over time and frustration. That's the real question here, is it an advantage over other players or is it a convienence you take advantage of? How you answer this question, would greatly effect the answer to your question.
Well, it could be a situation where people don't like paying for advantage but have no problem playing 80 hours per week. Basically saying they support the advantage they current have and oppose advantages they don't have or can't afford.
Welcome to every game/sport/contest/hobby ever designed or concieved. Essentialy with every activity that involves some degree of success or failure or some INTENDED differntiation in results..... there are certain areas which are intended to be measured and others which aren't.
For instance...in Scrabble it's perfectly acceptable to wear reading glasses to better see the board...as eyesight isn't something that's intended to be measured.... it's not acceptable to look up a word in a dictionary before placing your tiles.....as spelling and vocabulary are something that are intended to be tested.
People who are horrible spellers probably aren't, on average as interested in playing Scrabble as those who are.
Personaly, I'm a horrible speller....but have a decent vocabularly. I enjoy playing scrabble once inawhile but accept that I'm at a disadvantage when I do so due to my poor spelling.....I've lost plenty of games due to that. Naturaly there are other games that I prefer over Scrabble.... where my poor spelling skills are not as much an issue.
Doesn't mean that I think the rules of scrabble should be ammended to allow me to look up the spelling of words before placing them. I still have fun when I play Scrabble..... but I go into it fully knowing that I'm at a disadvantage. When I don't feel like suffering that disadvantage... I pick a different game to play (something I frequently do)......where spelling doesn't matter.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.
Advantage (n.) (cash shops)
Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:
Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)
I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.
That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise. Thanks for reading!
Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages. What about those who get advantages from having more game time? If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well. There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.
After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences? Mental differences?
There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages. Address all of them OR none of them.
WHY?
In boxing people are put into weight classes, but they aren't put into speed/accuracy classes.
Games/sports/contests are supposed to be measures of certain abilities/qualities of the participants but they are not neccesarly supposed to be a measure of ALL abilities/qualities of the particpants. Those are commonly acceptable societal norms.
Chess is supposed to be a measure of the players skill and experience at the game along with certain analytical abilities. If you have poor analytical skills then you may indeed be at a disadvantage against a player who has good ones, but that is an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the paradigm of the game as that is one of the qualities of the players that the game is DESIGNED directly to measure.
At the same time, one player may be physical weaker then the other...but in the paradigm of Chess that is NOT deemed to be an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the game and the rules are designed to account for that. They do not allow for one player to keep his opposition from moving a piece through the use of physical force. Chess is NOT, therefore designed to be a measure of the players physical strength.
If we change the game to arm wrestling, for example, the situation is reveresed. Arm Wrestling is designed to be primarly a measure of the participants physical strength. Lesser analytical skills are not intended to be a significant disadvantage and the rules are formulated to account for that.
The OP is simply asking the question whether we believe a players purchasing power SHOULD BE a quality that is DIRECTLY MEASURED in an MMO and the rulesets of the game designed to account for such.
You may feel free to disagree, but many of us here feel that it should NOT....and we decline to participate in games who's rules are designed contrary to that position....lobby for the creation of games with rulesets that support our preferences...and decline to participate in games with people who use such as an advantage.....NOT because we seek to destroy others enjoyment of the game, but simply because it destroys OURS.
That is a perfectly legitimate position to take.... and qualitatively no different then the person who says "I do not believe physical strength should have any roll in the game of chess" ... or perhaps even more accurately ... "I want to play Chess...not Arm Wrestle.... it's fine if you want to Arm Wrestle... but our preferences are incompatible...so we should be playing DIFFERENT games.... as I don't want to participate in a game that measures physical strength, thanks."
Well then paid for advantages should be ok.
If that's the INTENT of the design....and the type of game you want to play..... ABSOLUTELY. Just don't expect ME to want to participate in that same game with you.....because even though I have more then enough money to be able to do it if I want....it's not something I actualy ENJOY factoring into games.
If I was interested in that, I'd probably goto a RL auction instead.....don't really find any enjoyment in that element...so I don't participate in those either. YMMV.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.
Advantage (n.) (cash shops)
Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:
Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)
I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.
That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise. Thanks for reading!
Actually, the amount is relevant. It's in fact so relevant as to determine if someone will answer yes or no to your question. Would you really be against the devs selling a +0.1% damage boost in the cash shop? Really? or 1%? That's equal to 0 or no change in any MMO combat system. Or speaking about experience boosts, not only the amount is relevant, but the experience system and game model. For example 25% experience boost in say WoW or any other old MMO may be signifcant and a clear advantage, but, the same 25% boost in a modern game like GW2 is a non issue, and irrelevant, since the end-game starts at level 1 and the leveling curve is linear. Therefore applying the logic of your definition fails, as it can't be justly aplied to all types of MMO's out there. Therefore I can not answer your question because..
Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in WoW/LOTRO/AoC/.. is an unfair advantage? Yes, because the endgame starts at max level.
Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in GW2 is an unfair advantage? No.. because it does not matter. I have no reason to rush to max level.
I think the amount is only relevant in terms of level of tolerance for the activity. What the OP is asking about is more related to the Principle at question.
For example, on Principle, I believe cheating on ones taxes is wrong. If a guy making $40K a year claimed a $10 deduction that he wasn't entitled to...I'd still think, on Principle, that it was wrong....but the degree to which it bothered me would hardly be worth a shrug. On the other hand, a person who was making $40 Million per year and claimed $39.995 Million in deductions they werent entitled to is theoreticaly engaged in the same activity, in Principle....but the degree to which it bothered me would be VASTLY different.... So much so, that I'd probably report that person to the IRS.
MMO companies tend to live off that level of tolerance. They realize that alot of us (though clearly not all) really don't like the practice on Principle...but they try to find a point that is just within most peoples level of tolerance in order to maximize thier proffits (in other words, have their cake and eat it too) ....and many of them constantly test the edges of that envelope, to see just what they can get away with.
Instead of me repeating my rather clear argument hoping you will understand it, I would love for you to tell me all the advantages you are going to get.
OMG
That's how I felt when I saw people actually thought this would be an issue.
It's irrelevant if arena net sell you gold directly or indirectly. All those pay 2 win games dont' sell gold directly. But everyone hate it. Because gold have meaning in those game.
I can use gold to buy many things in those game. Godly gear, skill boost upgrade, wings to boost upgrade, material to level up crafting, exp boost.
My point is I dont' know why you keep stressing arena net isn't selling you gold direcly. All those pay 2 win games that sell diamonds, stones, rubies, gems didn't sell me gold directly too.
The only thing that matter is if the gold or gem is even relevant. And hopely in GW2, gold or gem isn't important at all. If you really want to defend GW2 that much what you should stress is gold and gem isn't even important.
Quite honestly I can't even think of a mmorpg that sell gold directly. To my very limited mmorpg knowledge I think a few of them sell rubies, diamonds, stones. And people hate it.
I already did stress it. You are quoting one of my many replies to a person who just doesn't get it. The reason I was emphasizing that it is important that no money was being created is because I assumed everyone was already aware you cannot use gold to purchase advantages, as that is rather common knowledge of anybody that followed GW1. I emphasized the lack of impact on the economy because that is the only other thing I could fathom that person to be (incorrectly) whining about.
without RMT, if you have an advantage it's because you played more, not because you paid more.
Making an advantage is not the same as buying one.
Isn't getting a job which will make enough money so you can buy RMT items making your own advantage?
I'm never going to be in a position where I can make 'time' to have an advantage in an mmo ever again. I have a wife, child, social and financial obligations well beyond anything that would allow me the time I had in '99-2004. Just ain't gonna happen.
You can't be suggesting that I should abandon my other responsibilities to create 'time' for video games.
You can't be suggesting that 'mmo's can never be for your demographic'.
You can't be suggesting that I don't have a perfect right to spend my money how I choose.
What you SHOULD be suggesting is that there should be some games available where time is the only advantage you can make for yourself. And guess what there are. So play them. And be glad my demographic has games suitable for my lifestyle. So I'll play those.
Why would you want to shut down a system that others enjoy, just because you don't? I know it stinks that all mmos aren't made to specially cater to your needs, but there are millions of gamers out there with a different schedule than yours.
So let me get this straight.
You pay 15 bucks
I pay 15 bucks
you get 1 month (AT time of purchase)
I get 1 month (At time of purchase)
You take your family to Disneyland for two weeks while I raid and get gear but I paid to win because of a choice you made?....No, because you had the exact same opportunity as me to raid. Probably wouldn't be good for your marriage, but you could tell your family that you have chosen to earn epics instead of vacation {oh, I guess you are suggesting that...}. It's your choice to do it or not to do it. Weather you get those epics at this point has nothing to do with any money either of us spent that the other didn't
You can't make your decisions about how you chose to play your game my responsibility by telling me I paid to win because I have more after we both got the same portion for the same price.
Besides, I know plenty of people that spend tremendous amounts of time in a game and don't have all epics. They mostly have fun just running around doing whatever on a whim..don't have a lot to show for it, but they are always online.
Or what about the person who spends hours on the internet reading on their class. He has power. over someone who doesn't I mean where does it stop?
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
And so, I take my wife and family to disneyworld, and let's say in this scenario, you are my real life friend. You got to raid and get gear and so forth while on my vacation. I get back and you say, 'dude, go to the cash shop so you can get an xp potion to catch up with me". I say, 'damn straight, because you and I want to play video games together'.
And the tambor of this thread is that I am somehow a morally deficient person because I 'paid for advantage'. BS. I paid a little bit extra to catch up with my buddy who I've played mmo's with for 10 years. It's my money - who is anyone to judge my moral character based on paying 5 extra bucks for an xp potion. It is silly.
These games exist and will continue to exist and probably grow in size because there are simply more gamers who have a 'normal' schedule to play video games.
There are still games out there that cater to those who have the time to play. They will also continue to exist. And I'm glad. I remember my EQ days most fondly of all, but I was single and in my twenties and I had a ton of time to devote to gaming. I wouldn't take away that type of game for anything. But that demographic is small. Small small. That's why the initial gamers of the late 90s and early 21st century numbered no more than say 1 million total. So we can extrapolate that of the gaming comunity, only about 1 million (out of what? 20 million, 30 million, 100 million gamers) have the time to devote to those types of games.
So let's keep developing those games to meet that demographic. They will still exist, but it will be a lot fewer and a lot further between because the market simply won't bare more.
And at the same time, there will be more rmt games of all varieties because the vast majority of mmo's don't have the 'time' to be purists anymore. But damn if I'm going to have to give up mmo gaming because a small percentage of the gaming population doesn't like me spending 5 bucks to catch up with my rl buddy. Screw that.
Again I say, I'm glad the free market doesn't work that way.
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
But what about the people that do have the time advantage AND buy those experience potions. That puts you at a greater disadvantage by forcing you to spend even more on potions to keep up with them. So while you buy even more potion (basically changing the game into a pay to win scenario) that player with little time and little money is left even further behind.
Basically its a slippery slope that I beleive a game is better for not treading on.
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
But what about the people that do have the time advantage AND buy those experience potions. That puts you at a greater disadvantage by forcing you to spend even more on potions to keep up with them. So while you buy even more potion (basically changing the game into a pay to win scenario) that player with little time and little money is left even further behind.
Basically its a slippery slope that I beleive a game is better for not treading on.
That's definately true - when we gain more freedom, people freely choose to do things we don't approve of. I don't lose sleep over it - there always have been and always will be people playing mmo's more hardcore than me, they will always be ahead of me in content and gear, no matter what the price structure.
The implication is that somehow these people 'cheated' to 'win'. But there is no 'winning' an mmo. So the guy with time and money beats you to the big boss at end game, and you don't get there for 2 weeks. Do you really feel he unfairly 'beat' you? Are you competing against other players or the mobs?
Do you really feel, 'damn if it werent for the people paying money, I WOULD BE KING'. Of course you aren't. Those who get to the end game first aren't the 'winners' they are the ones who did it first. Who cares if they bought xp potions or whatever to get there. I wasn't the first of anything in EQ, EQ2, vanilla WoW, or any game that didn't have a cash shop and I just had to get used to it that there would always be those more hardcore than me.
I can gaurentee you that those players who use RMT to maximize advantage, maximize advantage no matter what the pay structure is. Without the RMT, you still won't 'beat' these people to end game, they are simply more hardcore than you or I or most everyone else.
If you really feel that RMT's give an unfair advantage - play a game without them, show business that it is still a model they can make a profit from.
But the free market is telling business right now that there are more people who don't mind RMTs than people who do.
To lambast the developers for developing games that we enjoy playing with a pay structure that makes them money.....or to try and convince millions upon millions of RMT players they are immoral bad sport cheaters.......
Or to act as if one is more noble, more skilled, more badass because they had 10 hours of gameplay vs. my 3 hours....you aren't 'winning the mmo'. You win battles. You win quests. You win dungeons. You have individual victories. You don't win WoW.
It just all seems petty to me.
P.S.
I do however have to clarify that I do not believe in having to buy 'gear' to complete content. I strongly believe that everything to be the most uber player is available in game. I do have a line I draw and it is when I can't 'win' the sword of uber strength, I have to buy it. But I don't care that there are games out there. If that is what works for some, great. I don't lose sleep over those games existance however much I disagree with their pay structure, I simply don't play those games. Every game that releases doesn't have to be for 'me'. I want there to be so many games to choose from, with so many different pay structures that we can all play a game that is right for us; and I'd love to see different demographic segmants of the gaming community stop berating the developers everytime they make a game for someone elses demographic. They make them because we buy them - to them that signals we enjoy them. It is not the developers to blame, the anti-RMT people should really just admit that they can't come to terms that most gamers disagree with them, at least with their wallets.
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
But what about the people that do have the time advantage AND buy those experience potions. That puts you at a greater disadvantage by forcing you to spend even more on potions to keep up with them. So while you buy even more potion (basically changing the game into a pay to win scenario) that player with little time and little money is left even further behind.
Basically its a slippery slope that I beleive a game is better for not treading on.
Why do you need to keep up with them? you are not at war with anyone on your server at any time where exp matters (structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat)
in pve if your friends leveling Faster/Slower than you you side kick up or down to them. WvW you are max level. So i just dont see the point as where i have to stay on a leveling pace or ill be left behind. I may have a few less traits or lower level gear for a little while but its my choice to enter WvW at whatever level i want. if i enter at level 20 then thats on me
Why do you need to keep up with them? you are not at war with anyone on your server at any time where exp matters (structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat)
in pve if your friends leveling Faster/Slower than you you side kick up or down to them. WvW you are max level. So i just dont see the point as where i have to stay on a leveling pace or ill be left behind. I may have a few less traits or lower level gear for a little while but its my choice to enter WvW at whatever level i want. if i enter at level 20 then thats on me
I played on Rallos Zek in EQ. Where exp always mattered (due to exp loss on death) and when yes, we WERE at war with various guilds on the server (it was the same for vanguard when i played on their FFA pvp server) So your comment about "structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat" is actually incorrect in the type of games i like to play.
I also disdain server transfers & name changes (because they allow you to bypass your reputation)
Just to play devil's advocate, let's look at this from another angle.
Most games that have cash shops are subscription free, apart from the purely cosmetic type of items like those you can get from Blizzard, for example.
So, company MMO'sR'Us spend $80 million developing a game, they offer it as a free download, and they ask for no subscription. They have to recoup their initial investment for development, pay their staff who maintain the game and the servers, and probably develop more content to add at a later date.
In order to keep the game up and running they need to generate revenue from somewhere, so the cash shop opens. How do they ensure that players will buy from the shop if the offered merchandise is worthless? They have to make the items attractive somehow.
The only real issue is how much of an advantage can you sell before it becomes unfair? Some get it right and others don't. And don't forget, if it weren't for the people buying those items, NOBODY would be able to play the game, because it would be forced to close down.
For example, World of Tanks. Premium accounts get bonus xp and cash from battles. Premium tanks earn more money. Everyone is always slagging off people in premium tanks. Without people buying these things, those whining people wouldn't be able to play for free, because the company would be out of business and the servers shut down.
I think cash shops are pretty much a necessary evil, unless it's in a subscription based game, in which case it's just plain greedy.
Why do you need to keep up with them? you are not at war with anyone on your server at any time where exp matters (structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat)
in pve if your friends leveling Faster/Slower than you you side kick up or down to them. WvW you are max level. So i just dont see the point as where i have to stay on a leveling pace or ill be left behind. I may have a few less traits or lower level gear for a little while but its my choice to enter WvW at whatever level i want. if i enter at level 20 then thats on me
I played on Rallos Zek in EQ. Where exp always mattered (due to exp loss on death) and when yes, we WERE at war with various guilds on the server (it was the same for vanguard when i played on their FFA pvp server) So your comment about "structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat" is actually incorrect in the type of games i like to play.
I also disdain server transfers & name changes (because they allow you to bypass your reputation)
Which is none of the games this thread was actually made about.. Im speaking soley on gw2
Here is my opinion. With a free to play game it's all good. You get what you pay for. In a game with a monthly sub or a box price and a cash shop that provides you with in game advantages. Well, my opinion is that game is stinking heap of offal that I want no part of. Not now, not ever.
Hell, let people pay as much as they want to win a video game. A fool and his money are soon parted.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Let's not limit it to only paying for advantages. What about those who get advantages from having more game time? If you are going to be honest, that needs to be balanced as well. There are also computer and network advantages that can matter in some design approaches.
After you solve those small problems, what are you going to do to balance people with physical differences? Mental differences?
There are many factors that just don't include paying for advantages. Address all of them OR none of them.
You've just said exactly what I was thinking. I really, really hate that life is not fair (always have) and particularly hate that some of that unfairness could be alleviated if we had an entirely different approach to things (ie if resources were shared out equally, etc). The reality is, however, that people do have unfair advantages in life as in gaming.
Some people have more time, some have more money. Tough for those who have neither much time nor much money (poorly paid job, for example), nor the inclination to waste hours of their lives playing games in order to get virtual advantages (then I suppose it is sort of their choice).
I'm an older player with a few health problems (*sighs heavily*) and unfortunately that puts me at a great disadvantage when playing with younger people who tend to have better reflexes and want to play at a much faster pace (to say nothing of how they can, literally, run rings around me in pvp).
So, those (dis)advantages exist, and I'm not sure whether adding pay-to-win options via a cash shop really adds much more weight to the imbalances between players that already exist. There are so many factors to consider that it's hard to weigh it all up objectively; in my own case, I have more time than some, but less physical/mental energy, so my game time is limited that way (wouldn't want to play as much as some people, anyway, but as stated, that's choice).
So, maybe I could choose to spend a small amount of money to help me along, game-wise, and if that was measured against someone healthy, with loads of time (and inclination) to play long hours, but no spare cash (or desire to buy cash stop items) who has the real advantage?
Comments
#3 is a big no-no for me.
The other ones in reasonable moderation I don't care about.
Any of those not in reasonable moderation is bad.
I prefer sub games, with no cash shop myself...But I will be buying GW2, unless the final version of the cash shop is too much imo.
I am not getting into any of the hype over it, due to it being in flux...
But that's exactly what a subs game does.
Personally its wrong to have a sub and cash shop!
Currently playing- SWG PreCU & GW 2
Have tried WoW, AoC, & Vanguard, SWG:NGE, GW, LOTRO & SWTOR
Best MMO: SWG
Worst MMO: SWTOR
And how about if you paid 60$ for the game or were paying a monthly sub too?Actually it is worse in that D3 is not a MMO so the real money is leaking into single player games.. plus D3 will have a server and that is blurring the difference between single player and MMO even more. Pretty much a case of Companies worshipping at the throne of More Money, in my humble opinion.
Currently bored with MMO's.
But that's exactly what a subs game does.
Personally its wrong to have a sub and cash shop!
A sub or box purchase pays for access to the training facilities which all athletes need if they want to be athletes, how much they use them (effort) is proportional to their end skill level, steroids give the advantage for cash.WHY?
In boxing people are put into weight classes, but they aren't put into speed/accuracy classes.
Games/sports/contests are supposed to be measures of certain abilities/qualities of the participants but they are not neccesarly supposed to be a measure of ALL abilities/qualities of the particpants. Those are commonly acceptable societal norms.
Chess is supposed to be a measure of the players skill and experience at the game along with certain analytical abilities. If you have poor analytical skills then you may indeed be at a disadvantage against a player who has good ones, but that is an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the paradigm of the game as that is one of the qualities of the players that the game is DESIGNED directly to measure.
At the same time, one player may be physical weaker then the other...but in the paradigm of Chess that is NOT deemed to be an ACCEPTABLE disadvantage within the game and the rules are designed to account for that. They do not allow for one player to keep his opposition from moving a piece through the use of physical force. Chess is NOT, therefore designed to be a measure of the players physical strength.
If we change the game to arm wrestling, for example, the situation is reveresed. Arm Wrestling is designed to be primarly a measure of the participants physical strength. Lesser analytical skills are not intended to be a significant disadvantage and the rules are formulated to account for that.
The OP is simply asking the question whether we believe a players purchasing power SHOULD BE a quality that is DIRECTLY MEASURED in an MMO and the rulesets of the game designed to account for such.
You may feel free to disagree, but many of us here feel that it should NOT....and we decline to participate in games who's rules are designed contrary to that position....lobby for the creation of games with rulesets that support our preferences...and decline to participate in games with people who use such as an advantage.....NOT because we seek to destroy others enjoyment of the game, but simply because it destroys OURS.
That is a perfectly legitimate position to take.... and qualitatively no different then the person who says "I do not believe physical strength should have any roll in the game of chess" ... or perhaps even more accurately ... "I want to play Chess...not Arm Wrestle.... it's fine if you want to Arm Wrestle... but our preferences are incompatible...so we should be playing DIFFERENT games.... as I don't want to participate in a game that measures physical strength, thanks."
The only time I have a problem with cash shops is when they offer items NOT AVAILABLE in-game, or earnable by any other method (such as say golden ammo) that can be used against me/adversley affect my character specifically.
I dont particularly like it when the sell usable equipment(such as armor/weapons) unless its very standard(not rare/epic).
I was upset by Eve and thier monocles, but really cosmetic things I couldnt care less. If someone wants to pay money to paint thier tank green, or ride that rainbow pony, I couldnt care less. If they want bonus experience gains, I couldnt care less. a %experience/gold/fame gain doesnt effect my character in anyway. Sure they level faster, but all it means is theyll reach max faster. Same as someone who say gamed 24hrs a day for a month. Would you really be able to compete vs that type of player(I think not).
This isnt something that will be tied to a single definition, as its so variable from person to person and from game to game. I dont have a problem with it, it allows the consumer to support the business if they think the item is worth it.
Actually, the amount is relevant. It's in fact so relevant as to determine if someone will answer yes or no to your question. Would you really be against the devs selling a +0.1% damage boost in the cash shop? Really? or 1%? That's equal to 0 or no change in any MMO combat system. Or speaking about experience boosts, not only the amount is relevant, but the experience system and game model. For example 25% experience boost in say WoW or any other old MMO may be signifcant and a clear advantage, but, the same 25% boost in a modern game like GW2 is a non issue, and irrelevant, since the end-game starts at level 1 and the leveling curve is linear. Therefore applying the logic of your definition fails, as it can't be justly aplied to all types of MMO's out there. Therefore I can not answer your question because..
Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in WoW/LOTRO/AoC/.. is an unfair advantage? Yes, because the endgame starts at max level.
Do I feel selling 25% experience boost in GW2 is an unfair advantage? No.. because it does not matter. I have no reason to rush to max level.
My Guild Wars 2 First Beta Weekend "reviewette" : http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4944570/thread/349125#4944570
Well then paid for advantages should be ok.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
How that?That's like saying you work much more and much harder than me but i have the same salary as you.
Welcome to every game/sport/contest/hobby ever designed or concieved. Essentialy with every activity that involves some degree of success or failure or some INTENDED differntiation in results..... there are certain areas which are intended to be measured and others which aren't.
For instance...in Scrabble it's perfectly acceptable to wear reading glasses to better see the board...as eyesight isn't something that's intended to be measured.... it's not acceptable to look up a word in a dictionary before placing your tiles.....as spelling and vocabulary are something that are intended to be tested.
People who are horrible spellers probably aren't, on average as interested in playing Scrabble as those who are.
Personaly, I'm a horrible speller....but have a decent vocabularly. I enjoy playing scrabble once inawhile but accept that I'm at a disadvantage when I do so due to my poor spelling.....I've lost plenty of games due to that. Naturaly there are other games that I prefer over Scrabble.... where my poor spelling skills are not as much an issue.
Doesn't mean that I think the rules of scrabble should be ammended to allow me to look up the spelling of words before placing them. I still have fun when I play Scrabble..... but I go into it fully knowing that I'm at a disadvantage. When I don't feel like suffering that disadvantage... I pick a different game to play (something I frequently do)......where spelling doesn't matter.
If that's the INTENT of the design....and the type of game you want to play..... ABSOLUTELY. Just don't expect ME to want to participate in that same game with you.....because even though I have more then enough money to be able to do it if I want....it's not something I actualy ENJOY factoring into games.
If I was interested in that, I'd probably goto a RL auction instead.....don't really find any enjoyment in that element...so I don't participate in those either. YMMV.
I think the amount is only relevant in terms of level of tolerance for the activity. What the OP is asking about is more related to the Principle at question.
For example, on Principle, I believe cheating on ones taxes is wrong. If a guy making $40K a year claimed a $10 deduction that he wasn't entitled to...I'd still think, on Principle, that it was wrong....but the degree to which it bothered me would hardly be worth a shrug. On the other hand, a person who was making $40 Million per year and claimed $39.995 Million in deductions they werent entitled to is theoreticaly engaged in the same activity, in Principle....but the degree to which it bothered me would be VASTLY different.... So much so, that I'd probably report that person to the IRS.
MMO companies tend to live off that level of tolerance. They realize that alot of us (though clearly not all) really don't like the practice on Principle...but they try to find a point that is just within most peoples level of tolerance in order to maximize thier proffits (in other words, have their cake and eat it too) ....and many of them constantly test the edges of that envelope, to see just what they can get away with.
I already did stress it. You are quoting one of my many replies to a person who just doesn't get it. The reason I was emphasizing that it is important that no money was being created is because I assumed everyone was already aware you cannot use gold to purchase advantages, as that is rather common knowledge of anybody that followed GW1. I emphasized the lack of impact on the economy because that is the only other thing I could fathom that person to be (incorrectly) whining about.
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
And so, I take my wife and family to disneyworld, and let's say in this scenario, you are my real life friend. You got to raid and get gear and so forth while on my vacation. I get back and you say, 'dude, go to the cash shop so you can get an xp potion to catch up with me". I say, 'damn straight, because you and I want to play video games together'.
And the tambor of this thread is that I am somehow a morally deficient person because I 'paid for advantage'. BS. I paid a little bit extra to catch up with my buddy who I've played mmo's with for 10 years. It's my money - who is anyone to judge my moral character based on paying 5 extra bucks for an xp potion. It is silly.
These games exist and will continue to exist and probably grow in size because there are simply more gamers who have a 'normal' schedule to play video games.
There are still games out there that cater to those who have the time to play. They will also continue to exist. And I'm glad. I remember my EQ days most fondly of all, but I was single and in my twenties and I had a ton of time to devote to gaming. I wouldn't take away that type of game for anything. But that demographic is small. Small small. That's why the initial gamers of the late 90s and early 21st century numbered no more than say 1 million total. So we can extrapolate that of the gaming comunity, only about 1 million (out of what? 20 million, 30 million, 100 million gamers) have the time to devote to those types of games.
So let's keep developing those games to meet that demographic. They will still exist, but it will be a lot fewer and a lot further between because the market simply won't bare more.
And at the same time, there will be more rmt games of all varieties because the vast majority of mmo's don't have the 'time' to be purists anymore. But damn if I'm going to have to give up mmo gaming because a small percentage of the gaming population doesn't like me spending 5 bucks to catch up with my rl buddy. Screw that.
Again I say, I'm glad the free market doesn't work that way.
But what about the people that do have the time advantage AND buy those experience potions. That puts you at a greater disadvantage by forcing you to spend even more on potions to keep up with them. So while you buy even more potion (basically changing the game into a pay to win scenario) that player with little time and little money is left even further behind.
Basically its a slippery slope that I beleive a game is better for not treading on.
That's definately true - when we gain more freedom, people freely choose to do things we don't approve of. I don't lose sleep over it - there always have been and always will be people playing mmo's more hardcore than me, they will always be ahead of me in content and gear, no matter what the price structure.
The implication is that somehow these people 'cheated' to 'win'. But there is no 'winning' an mmo. So the guy with time and money beats you to the big boss at end game, and you don't get there for 2 weeks. Do you really feel he unfairly 'beat' you? Are you competing against other players or the mobs?
Do you really feel, 'damn if it werent for the people paying money, I WOULD BE KING'. Of course you aren't. Those who get to the end game first aren't the 'winners' they are the ones who did it first. Who cares if they bought xp potions or whatever to get there. I wasn't the first of anything in EQ, EQ2, vanilla WoW, or any game that didn't have a cash shop and I just had to get used to it that there would always be those more hardcore than me.
I can gaurentee you that those players who use RMT to maximize advantage, maximize advantage no matter what the pay structure is. Without the RMT, you still won't 'beat' these people to end game, they are simply more hardcore than you or I or most everyone else.
If you really feel that RMT's give an unfair advantage - play a game without them, show business that it is still a model they can make a profit from.
But the free market is telling business right now that there are more people who don't mind RMTs than people who do.
To lambast the developers for developing games that we enjoy playing with a pay structure that makes them money.....or to try and convince millions upon millions of RMT players they are immoral bad sport cheaters.......
Or to act as if one is more noble, more skilled, more badass because they had 10 hours of gameplay vs. my 3 hours....you aren't 'winning the mmo'. You win battles. You win quests. You win dungeons. You have individual victories. You don't win WoW.
It just all seems petty to me.
P.S.
I do however have to clarify that I do not believe in having to buy 'gear' to complete content. I strongly believe that everything to be the most uber player is available in game. I do have a line I draw and it is when I can't 'win' the sword of uber strength, I have to buy it. But I don't care that there are games out there. If that is what works for some, great. I don't lose sleep over those games existance however much I disagree with their pay structure, I simply don't play those games. Every game that releases doesn't have to be for 'me'. I want there to be so many games to choose from, with so many different pay structures that we can all play a game that is right for us; and I'd love to see different demographic segmants of the gaming community stop berating the developers everytime they make a game for someone elses demographic. They make them because we buy them - to them that signals we enjoy them. It is not the developers to blame, the anti-RMT people should really just admit that they can't come to terms that most gamers disagree with them, at least with their wallets.
Why do you need to keep up with them? you are not at war with anyone on your server at any time where exp matters (structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat)
in pve if your friends leveling Faster/Slower than you you side kick up or down to them. WvW you are max level. So i just dont see the point as where i have to stay on a leveling pace or ill be left behind. I may have a few less traits or lower level gear for a little while but its my choice to enter WvW at whatever level i want. if i enter at level 20 then thats on me
I played on Rallos Zek in EQ. Where exp always mattered (due to exp loss on death) and when yes, we WERE at war with various guilds on the server (it was the same for vanguard when i played on their FFA pvp server) So your comment about "structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat" is actually incorrect in the type of games i like to play.
I also disdain server transfers & name changes (because they allow you to bypass your reputation)
Just to play devil's advocate, let's look at this from another angle.
Most games that have cash shops are subscription free, apart from the purely cosmetic type of items like those you can get from Blizzard, for example.
So, company MMO'sR'Us spend $80 million developing a game, they offer it as a free download, and they ask for no subscription. They have to recoup their initial investment for development, pay their staff who maintain the game and the servers, and probably develop more content to add at a later date.
In order to keep the game up and running they need to generate revenue from somewhere, so the cash shop opens. How do they ensure that players will buy from the shop if the offered merchandise is worthless? They have to make the items attractive somehow.
The only real issue is how much of an advantage can you sell before it becomes unfair? Some get it right and others don't. And don't forget, if it weren't for the people buying those items, NOBODY would be able to play the game, because it would be forced to close down.
For example, World of Tanks. Premium accounts get bonus xp and cash from battles. Premium tanks earn more money. Everyone is always slagging off people in premium tanks. Without people buying these things, those whining people wouldn't be able to play for free, because the company would be out of business and the servers shut down.
I think cash shops are pretty much a necessary evil, unless it's in a subscription based game, in which case it's just plain greedy.
Which is none of the games this thread was actually made about.. Im speaking soley on gw2
Here is my opinion. With a free to play game it's all good. You get what you pay for. In a game with a monthly sub or a box price and a cash shop that provides you with in game advantages. Well, my opinion is that game is stinking heap of offal that I want no part of. Not now, not ever.
Hell, let people pay as much as they want to win a video game. A fool and his money are soon parted.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
You've just said exactly what I was thinking. I really, really hate that life is not fair (always have) and particularly hate that some of that unfairness could be alleviated if we had an entirely different approach to things (ie if resources were shared out equally, etc). The reality is, however, that people do have unfair advantages in life as in gaming.
Some people have more time, some have more money. Tough for those who have neither much time nor much money (poorly paid job, for example), nor the inclination to waste hours of their lives playing games in order to get virtual advantages (then I suppose it is sort of their choice).
I'm an older player with a few health problems (*sighs heavily*) and unfortunately that puts me at a great disadvantage when playing with younger people who tend to have better reflexes and want to play at a much faster pace (to say nothing of how they can, literally, run rings around me in pvp).
So, those (dis)advantages exist, and I'm not sure whether adding pay-to-win options via a cash shop really adds much more weight to the imbalances between players that already exist. There are so many factors to consider that it's hard to weigh it all up objectively; in my own case, I have more time than some, but less physical/mental energy, so my game time is limited that way (wouldn't want to play as much as some people, anyway, but as stated, that's choice).
So, maybe I could choose to spend a small amount of money to help me along, game-wise, and if that was measured against someone healthy, with loads of time (and inclination) to play long hours, but no spare cash (or desire to buy cash stop items) who has the real advantage?