Pay to win is the stupid thought that players need to pay to win
Its the comment originally made that people have to pay to win as there is no other choices.
That's where the root of that term comes from.....its a derogatory comment made by many who have had the unfortunate experience in playing games like that.
It does not mean you buy things to make your leveling easier.....only idiots and morons as the last few years have started to use that term for that reason and incorrectly.
Yes a certain new game in open beta makes you spend cash as you have no real way to get the extra bag space you will need to play nor will you be able to get most of the real high level items with out resorting to drastic or unimaginable methods in game as the costs are astronomical and a normal player cannot hold that much.
Pay to win games follow a specific pattern, they will always have ways to get most items from their cash shops in game but the way to do it is always obscured and made extremely difficult and very time consuming.
Like for example when you battle a certain underground dragon to get that special Mount Soul from a specific game I wont say the name, you will find that the normal dropped items you have are not nearly enough for the party to tackle it. And even if you have the items you have to do extraordinary tactics to beat it.
Or better still in a differing game you can easily get specific items of high level through the cash shop.....or you can simply defeat over 1 billion of a certain type of enemy to get a specific item.
The term originally though came from players playing some specific games that literally required you to buy items from the cash shop or else you could not actually play specific adventure/dungeons nor have items that would let you fight specific in game enemies (termed as party or nightmare or advanced encounters in games)...if you know games that use these terms then you probably can easily figure out which games these are....some long time game players ofcourse will use these as reminders.
For me I have intimate knowledge of the term and how it came about after playing many video games....its like L337 speak.
What astounds me the most is the forum posts like this one and the actual people who post on it with so many "I think posts" or other things not related to the actual history of things......at some points its like people seam to forget where the terms or concepts come from.....and of course there is always the newer generation of players who feel they need to make things up to make it seam like they have knowledge.
Then of course there are those specific individuals who label everything in a negative fashion because they are either fans of some other game or hate some game or other.
"I do stand corrected on one thing....they have published their basic methodology.....http://www.superdataresearch.com/methodology/. Looking at that you can understand a couple things....
- They can't tell the number of INDIVIDUALS playing MMO's....only the agregate number of accounts logged in across their sample base over a monthly period and extrapolating for their. So they 50 million doesn't represent PEOPLE only accounts.... they really have no idea if accounts per person is weighted disproportionately across their sample base.
- They'd also have to engage in some weighting since they are only handling 50 publishers across all genre's of online games (not just MMO's).....and we don't know how accurate their weighting of all MMO's is based on their sample base.
- They also,. of course, rely on voluntary aggregate reporting from thier individual publishers. Which makes it difficult to determine if there is accidental or intentional bias in the reporting.
- They also provide no information on how they actually go about categorizing MMO's into different classifications. For example is "hybrid" classified as F2P, P2P? Is it split across categories based upon whether the revenue was from the subscription portion of the game or the RMT portion? This would make a difference in the final tabulation.
I'm going to have to stand by what I said before....better then some random dude on the internet but still pretty weak evidence."
These are the sort of problem that our F2P crowd want to avoid. I would say however there is enough evidence that they could right, F2P may well be ahead of P2P. It is their unwavering belief that these studies are correct that makes me laugh. There is no room for doubt in their minds about anything that says F2P is doing better. And a lot depends on B2P, if you put that in as F2P it would really skew the figures.
We did have a thread here about the definition of Pay-to-Win until it got hijacked by the F2P crowd who really don't like talking about that either. They would much rather go on about figures showing that F2P may doing better than P2P. As our last poster was talking about history: When we only had Subs there was no such thing as P2W, nuff said.
They don't provide any real data because they don't have it; companies aren't releasing it. And why is that? To confuse and deceive the consumer.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
We did have a thread here about the definition of Pay-to-Win until it got hijacked by the F2P crowd who really don't like talking about that either. They would much rather go on about figures showing that F2P may doing better than P2P. As our last poster was talking about history: When we only had Subs there was no such thing as P2W, nuff said.
Says who?
I love to talk about P2W. It is one of the fair ways of funding MMO. Free players play for free, and those who pay should get some advantage.
And your dollar is as powerful as mine. A level playing field.
And when we only have subs, we don't have free games, and cannot hop from one to another as easily. So today is much better.
"I do stand corrected on one thing....they have published their basic methodology.....http://www.superdataresearch.com/methodology/. Looking at that you can understand a couple things....
- They can't tell the number of INDIVIDUALS playing MMO's....only the agregate number of accounts logged in across their sample base over a monthly period and extrapolating for their. So they 50 million doesn't represent PEOPLE only accounts.... they really have no idea if accounts per person is weighted disproportionately across their sample base.
- They'd also have to engage in some weighting since they are only handling 50 publishers across all genre's of online games (not just MMO's).....and we don't know how accurate their weighting of all MMO's is based on their sample base.
- They also,. of course, rely on voluntary aggregate reporting from thier individual publishers. Which makes it difficult to determine if there is accidental or intentional bias in the reporting.
- They also provide no information on how they actually go about categorizing MMO's into different classifications. For example is "hybrid" classified as F2P, P2P? Is it split across categories based upon whether the revenue was from the subscription portion of the game or the RMT portion? This would make a difference in the final tabulation.
I'm going to have to stand by what I said before....better then some random dude on the internet but still pretty weak evidence."
These are the sort of problem that our F2P crowd want to avoid. I would say however there is enough evidence that they could right, F2P may well be ahead of P2P. It is their unwavering belief that these studies are correct that makes me laugh. There is no room for doubt in their minds about anything that says F2P is doing better. And a lot depends on B2P, if you put that in as F2P it would really skew the figures.
We did have a thread here about the definition of Pay-to-Win until it got hijacked by the F2P crowd who really don't like talking about that either. They would much rather go on about figures showing that F2P may doing better than P2P. As our last poster was talking about history: When we only had Subs there was no such thing as P2W, nuff said.
If someone refutes your anecdote-based assertions with data, you claim the data is biased or not reliable. If someone rather deal with facts and doesn't want to engage you on the definition of terms created solely to present bias (Pay to Win) then you say they are dodging the subject. If we link reports and articles from specific companies with their numbers then you say either that's just one company or that they have bias in their reports.
It doesn't make a difference that companies like Deloitte and Erst&Young find the data reliable enough to reference. It doesn't make a difference that industry experts cite the data in major conferences and presentations at professional conventions.
Basically, you believe what you want to believe and you will not allow any amount of truth to sway that. You will always give reason why real numbers - something that few, if any, of the F2P-averse crowd ever have to back their argument - are suspect and cannot be deemed true or reliable.
And this is why any reasonable conversation on this topic is impossible. It definitely isn't for lack of trying.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A few years ago if you bought in game currency with real money and used that to buy top tier gear off auction channels you where subject to having your account banned and losing everything you bought because it was bad for the in game economy. Now that developers have replaced gold farmers as the middleman in such transactions it suddenly is ok for it to go on?
Currency conversation is pay 2 win in my book plane and simple just like it was years ago. I would go so far as to say allowing players to sell subscriptions is pretty much crossing the line. When did developer focus turn more to undercutting the gold farmers profits rather than trying to stop them?
They don't provide any real data because they don't have it; companies aren't releasing it. And why is that? To confuse and deceive the consumer.
There's data out there, but most of it you'd have to shell out money for, simply because that kind of data is valuable. Here are some free sources for you, several of which explain MAU, ARPU/ARPPU and other terms regularly used in these discussions.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A few years ago if you bought in game currency with real money and used that to buy top tier gear off auction channels you where subject to having your account banned and losing everything you bought because it was bad for the in game economy. Now that developers have replaced gold farmers as the middleman in such transactions it suddenly is ok for it to go on?
You were banned for violating the EULA, not because it was bad for the economy. How it affected the economy had no part in the banning.
Now, as for the second part, most of the original MMOs weren't designed to support such trades, which is why they had more negative affects. When the devs support such trades, they build the game around the feature, making it part of the game rather than a metagame they would otherwise be forced to contend with and correct against.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I personally don't see it that way. The example in World of Tanks is P2W in my eyes since the item can ONLY be acquired by purchasing it with real life money.
This information is outdated and false. Premium Ammo/Consumables are now purchasable with in-game currency and, anyone who uses RL money to pay for them is an idiot.
What it all boils down to is that the term "pay to win" is a term used to insult free-to-play online games and unless your intent is to bash and troll there is not much reason to apply it.
Any free to play game is going to have to sell things in order for the product to provide a revenue stream and be profitable. Therefore, a well-designed free to play game has to be balanced so that new players can have fun and be pulled into the game without spending money, but then be required to have to make purchases as they spend more and more time playing it. And those players that wish to be competitive at endgame, yes, they should absolutely be required to need to make regular purchases in order to remain more competitive than players who are unwilling to make purchases; purchases which support the company that provides the experience.
These games must provide incentives for players to spend money so of course they must sell useful items. Therefore players who never make purchases should naturally have a harder time. And this is totally reasonable.
You are not competing against an AI, the game goal isn't to spar with AI but complete the game. Progress through, not to kill the most NPC or hardest opponent - that would be indeed a competitive game, not all games are tho.
You are just being stuck in your rigid perception that everything is competition, it is not.
without it there would never be a story told. Any time there is conflict, there is competition.
Who am I competing with if I go bowling? Or play a round of golf? These are games that I can do by myself with no AI, no other person even has to be around. There is no AI on a golf course or on the bowling lanes. I can't really be said to be competing with myself either since there are absolute highs (for bowling) and lows (for golf) that are literally impossible to go beyond.
So am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
The ability to buy items that gives an advantage with real money.
You forgot to add this : that can't be acquired with the in-game currency. The most important part.
Just because something can be acquired through the game without using real currency DOESN'T make it right.
MMORPGs are all about spending time to improve.
Time savers, are big part of P2W that a lot of simple-minded players seem to be "OK" with.
Being able to get XY and Z with in game currency is the defence every MMO that goes down the P2W route makes sure it now has. You know it is P2W, I know it is P2W, lets just call it P2W and stop buying into the smoke screen MMO's have put this behind.
A few years ago if you bought in game currency with real money and used that to buy top tier gear off auction channels you where subject to having your account banned and losing everything you bought because it was bad for the in game economy. Now that developers have replaced gold farmers as the middleman in such transactions it suddenly is ok for it to go on?
You were banned for violating the EULA, not because it was bad for the economy. How it affected the economy had no part in the banning.
Now, as for the second part, most of the original MMOs weren't designed to support such trades, which is why they had more negative affects. When the devs support such trades, they build the game around the feature, making it part of the game rather than a metagame they would otherwise be forced to contend with and correct against.
Your last paragraph, come on do you really believe that? They make a feature of gold selling so that makes it fine? How do the devs know how much gold players are going to buy and what they are going to do with it? You cannot be sure what effect allowing players to buy potentially unlimited amounts of gold will be. The effect on the game economy must be very distorting.
As to your previous points on game data veracity, I accept you know your data sources. I am not sure you understand how any data has to be taken with a pinch of salt. You seem to have more faith in data about population figures in games than climate scientists have in data about climate change, or political advisors have in polling predictions. Problems with data sampling, definitions of MMO's and the size of the data pool are genuine concerns. I do lean towards the interpretation you have given, but it is the F2P crowds blind faith in anything positive for F2P games that makes it very hard to have a meaningful discussion on here about these surveys. You are trying to put all the blame on the non F2P crowd, as if bias is not on both sides.
Player C has been playing for several months, and has finally reached an advanced level.
Then a whole bunch of fake crap that doesn't happen.
Players D and C meet.
Which one has the advantage?
Look, we get it that you have some burning hatred against a business model, but you either a) have no clue what you are talking about or b) are lying and hoping you won't get called on it.
Rolling into a PVP game and buying up epic gear from the cash shop that isn't otherwise obtainable in game?
It's kinda silly. As silly as always using these PVP example when the majority of people will rarely if ever see such a scenario because they do not like and will not be involved in PVP. After all, from a PvE perspective your argument falls apart.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Player C has been playing for several months, and has finally reached an advanced level.
Then a whole bunch of fake crap that doesn't happen.
Players D and C meet.
Which one has the advantage?
Look, we get it that you have some burning hatred against a business model, but you either a) have no clue what you are talking about or b) are lying and hoping you won't get called on it.
Rolling into a PVP game and buying up epic gear from the cash shop that isn't otherwise obtainable in game?
It's kinda silly. As silly as always using these PVP example when the majority of people will rarely if ever see such a scenario because they do not like and will not be involved in PVP. After all, from a PvE perspective your argument falls apart.
His argument doesn't fall apart on PvE.
Player X gains gold, resources, gear, "you name it" faster.
This directly reflects in the ingame market. Some players have easier paths in gaining gold or resources so they can manage the market as they please or they gain gear they can sell for a fitting price.
The players who aren't abusing the microtransaction are without doubt left behind
Thus microtransactions are fine in a single-player game where you actions doesn't affect anyone else.
In multiplayer enviroment with economy/pvp/whatevs someone gaining unfounded advantage affects everyone.
So am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
The ability to buy items that gives an advantage with real money.
You forgot to add this : that can't be acquired with the in-game currency. The most important part.
Incorrect.
People can buy gold with RMT that can buy said item which in turns make it P2W. Granted there is no MMO that comes to mind where one can get top notch quality via game currency. EVE is one but then again you lose your items when your destroyed. DDO fits this bill but it is more reliant on class builds and EDs than anything, but DDOs balance is completely fubared though.
Player C has been playing for several months, and has finally reached an advanced level.
Then a whole bunch of fake crap that doesn't happen.
Players D and C meet.
Which one has the advantage?
Look, we get it that you have some burning hatred against a business model, but you either a) have no clue what you are talking about or b) are lying and hoping you won't get called on it.
Rolling into a PVP game and buying up epic gear from the cash shop that isn't otherwise obtainable in game?
It's kinda silly. As silly as always using these PVP example when the majority of people will rarely if ever see such a scenario because they do not like and will not be involved in PVP. After all, from a PvE perspective your argument falls apart.
sadly for you, F2P devs are smarter than that
many (hell, nearly all) F2P MMOs that sport pay-to-win cash shop items also:
1) have Open World PvP, so you cannot possibly run away from it
2) tune the difficulty of the endgame for the cash shop buyer's level, meaning that if your char hasnt invested a fairly big amount of money in the cash shop to enhance his enchantments, damage, gear score, whatever.... your figthing an uphill battle
whats even funnier is that most of the time, the devs themselves wont even have to bother reminding you that without paying a shitload of money your undesirable.
the community will do it for them.
- join raid group
- leader inspects you and finds out your not fully decked thru cash shop means
- kicks you out and replaces you with someone who has paid money to be better than you, hence more relevant to the raid's interest, greater guarantee of success, faster run, you name it
- you wander around alone for a while, till you finally come into terms with the notion that noone wants to take freeloaders in endgame content because...well...the game's difficulty is purposedly set to make them a bad pick
- quit game, jump to another game hoping it will be different, just to have the same cycle repeat
A few years ago if you bought in game currency with real money and used that to buy top tier gear off auction channels you where subject to having your account banned and losing everything you bought because it was bad for the in game economy. Now that developers have replaced gold farmers as the middleman in such transactions it suddenly is ok for it to go on?
You were banned for violating the EULA, not because it was bad for the economy. How it affected the economy had no part in the banning.
Now, as for the second part, most of the original MMOs weren't designed to support such trades, which is why they had more negative affects. When the devs support such trades, they build the game around the feature, making it part of the game rather than a metagame they would otherwise be forced to contend with and correct against.
And why was it in the EULA to begin with? Yea part of it is that companies don't want others profiting from their work but another part of it is that they did not want to have to have to deal with all the downsides such activities caused such as mass farming, stolen accounts and price inflation.
What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
Game companies did not change anything around the economy, all they did was internalize the process so they could profit from it rather than letting some outside company do it. All the issues it causes except for getting your account stolen are still there. Allowing the trade of in game currency for real money changes how people play the game, maybe it's subtle but it's there and if you pay attention long enough it will start to bother you.
I play a lot of modern F2P games and I still raid in EQ2 with a Sub. The way I play those F2P games and the way I play EQ2 are very different. And after years of bouncing from one F2P to another I have come to the conclusion that I prefer a game where I don't have to balance the choices I make in game against my willingness to spend more money all the time. That's not to say all F2P and B2P games are bad. The converted Sub to F2P/B2P games with a Sub option have a few good examples the best of which is TSW but on the whole F2P and B2P games are the short term consumable fast food of the video game industry.
A few years ago if you bought in game currency with real money and used that to buy top tier gear off auction channels you where subject to having your account banned and losing everything you bought because it was bad for the in game economy. Now that developers have replaced gold farmers as the middleman in such transactions it suddenly is ok for it to go on?
You were banned for violating the EULA, not because it was bad for the economy. How it affected the economy had no part in the banning.
Now, as for the second part, most of the original MMOs weren't designed to support such trades, which is why they had more negative affects. When the devs support such trades, they build the game around the feature, making it part of the game rather than a metagame they would otherwise be forced to contend with and correct against.
And why was it in the EULA to begin with? Yea part of it is that companies don't want others profiting from their work but another part of it is that they did not want to have to have to deal with all the downsides such activities caused such as mass farming, stolen accounts and price inflation.
What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
Game companies did not change anything around the economy, all they did was internalize the process so they could profit from it rather than letting some outside company do it. All the issues it causes except for getting your account stolen are still there. Allowing the trade of in game currency for real money changes how people play the game, maybe it's subtle but it's there and if you pay attention long enough it will start to bother you.
I play a lot of modern F2P games and I still raid in EQ2 with a Sub. The way I play those F2P games and the way I play EQ2 are very different. And after years of bouncing from one F2P to another I have come to the conclusion that I prefer a game where I don't have to balance the choices I make in game against my willingness to spend more money all the time. That's not to say all F2P and B2P games are bad. The converted Sub to F2P/B2P games with a Sub option have a few good examples the best of which is TSW.
Q: What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
A: Because in most cases it is transparent to you as a player. Loot tables, storage space, gold sinks (ex: neon haircuts in UO) and other aspects of gameplay are built to support or regulate the flow of items and currency in and out of the game.
One of the most innovative solutions was the creation of in-game transferrable items for account/character services. Ultima Online was one of the first to adopt this system back in 2003 using tokens. The next most notable use of that system was EVE Online's PLEX in 2008. Since then several other games, including the recently released Guild Wars 2, have incorporated similar systems.
In many games, the changes were to stem such transfers altogether by creating multiple currencies so that having gobs of game gold was less effective, especially at the higher tiers of gameplay where the more needed items can only be purchased with non-transferrable currency, often obtained from questing or faction/objective farming.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Q: What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
A: Because in most cases it is transparent to you as a player. Loot tables, storage space, gold sinks (ex: neon haircuts in UO) and other aspects of gameplay are built to support or regulate the flow of items and currency in and out of the game.
One of the most innovative solutions was the creation of in-game transferrable items for account/character services. Ultima Online was one of the first to adopt this system back in 2003 using tokens. The next most notable use of that system was EVE Online's PLEX in 2008. Since then several other games, including the recently released Guild Wars 2, have incorporated similar systems.
In many games, the changes were to stem such transfers altogether by creating multiple currencies so that having gobs of game gold was less effective, especially at the higher tiers of gameplay where the more needed items can only be purchased with non-transferrable currency, often obtained from questing or faction/objective farming.
We will have to agree to disagree I guess. All those systems you talk about where first and foremost designed to get players to spend more real money than a $15 month sub could pull. Where you see the companies trying to solve a issue for their consumers I see a company trying to maximize their profits at the expense of game play mechanics.
For me the rise of F2P and B2P in MMO's has corresponded with a decrease in depth of systems and content and I don't think it's a coincidence. Modern MMO's are meant to be consumed and thrown away not lived in for years.
Since the beginning of time, players have looked for the easiest, shortest route to their destination. They've downloaded strategy guides, looked up quests on the internet, paid for gold, paid for characters, used exploits, rolled FotM classes, used leveling enhancements, created twinks, multi-boxed... you name it. They all give players an advantage. Players like to one up other players. They'll do anything, fair and unfair, to achieve it. The goal is to be on top. Best gear, best class, best guild, best PVPer, best everything. Knowing this, the whole world has created avenues to assist players in achieving this... we have websites dedicated to games, gold farmers, leveling services, eBay, enhanced gaming equipment, macros, add-ons, auction houses... and yes, even in-game cash shops.
Whether you pay for it or not, you cannot escape the fact that you will always have something that someone else does not at some point in the game. By definition, this gives you an advantage over someone else. That's why there can never be balance... bought or otherwise.
Player C has been playing for several months, and has finally reached an advanced level.
Player D started playing 2 weeks ago, and last week he bought tons of boosts and epic gear, he is now a higher ranking than Player C.
Players D and C meet, Player D annihilates Player C.
Which one has the advantage?
Yeah, it's a trick question, either way you look at it, the guy that bought his way into the game has the advantage, even if it's only time.
Sure. And it is no difference than those who spend time (playing 20 hours instead of 2 in the 2 weeks), or spend "friendship" (have higher level friends helping leveling by grouping & killing monsters).
And why should people be buying advantages? It is a level system. Anyone can buy into it.
Comments
good gravy
Pay to win is the stupid thought that players need to pay to win
Its the comment originally made that people have to pay to win as there is no other choices.
That's where the root of that term comes from.....its a derogatory comment made by many who have had the unfortunate experience in playing games like that.
It does not mean you buy things to make your leveling easier.....only idiots and morons as the last few years have started to use that term for that reason and incorrectly.
Yes a certain new game in open beta makes you spend cash as you have no real way to get the extra bag space you will need to play nor will you be able to get most of the real high level items with out resorting to drastic or unimaginable methods in game as the costs are astronomical and a normal player cannot hold that much.
Pay to win games follow a specific pattern, they will always have ways to get most items from their cash shops in game but the way to do it is always obscured and made extremely difficult and very time consuming.
Like for example when you battle a certain underground dragon to get that special Mount Soul from a specific game I wont say the name, you will find that the normal dropped items you have are not nearly enough for the party to tackle it. And even if you have the items you have to do extraordinary tactics to beat it.
Or better still in a differing game you can easily get specific items of high level through the cash shop.....or you can simply defeat over 1 billion of a certain type of enemy to get a specific item.
The term originally though came from players playing some specific games that literally required you to buy items from the cash shop or else you could not actually play specific adventure/dungeons nor have items that would let you fight specific in game enemies (termed as party or nightmare or advanced encounters in games)...if you know games that use these terms then you probably can easily figure out which games these are....some long time game players ofcourse will use these as reminders.
For me I have intimate knowledge of the term and how it came about after playing many video games....its like L337 speak.
What astounds me the most is the forum posts like this one and the actual people who post on it with so many "I think posts" or other things not related to the actual history of things......at some points its like people seam to forget where the terms or concepts come from.....and of course there is always the newer generation of players who feel they need to make things up to make it seam like they have knowledge.
Then of course there are those specific individuals who label everything in a negative fashion because they are either fans of some other game or hate some game or other.
"I do stand corrected on one thing....they have published their basic methodology.....http://www.superdataresearch.com/methodology/. Looking at that you can understand a couple things....
- They can't tell the number of INDIVIDUALS playing MMO's....only the agregate number of accounts logged in across their sample base over a monthly period and extrapolating for their. So they 50 million doesn't represent PEOPLE only accounts.... they really have no idea if accounts per person is weighted disproportionately across their sample base.
- They'd also have to engage in some weighting since they are only handling 50 publishers across all genre's of online games (not just MMO's).....and we don't know how accurate their weighting of all MMO's is based on their sample base.
- They also,. of course, rely on voluntary aggregate reporting from thier individual publishers. Which makes it difficult to determine if there is accidental or intentional bias in the reporting.
- They also provide no information on how they actually go about categorizing MMO's into different classifications. For example is "hybrid" classified as F2P, P2P? Is it split across categories based upon whether the revenue was from the subscription portion of the game or the RMT portion? This would make a difference in the final tabulation.
I'm going to have to stand by what I said before....better then some random dude on the internet but still pretty weak evidence."
These are the sort of problem that our F2P crowd want to avoid. I would say however there is enough evidence that they could right, F2P may well be ahead of P2P. It is their unwavering belief that these studies are correct that makes me laugh. There is no room for doubt in their minds about anything that says F2P is doing better. And a lot depends on B2P, if you put that in as F2P it would really skew the figures.
We did have a thread here about the definition of Pay-to-Win until it got hijacked by the F2P crowd who really don't like talking about that either. They would much rather go on about figures showing that F2P may doing better than P2P. As our last poster was talking about history: When we only had Subs there was no such thing as P2W, nuff said.
They don't provide any real data because they don't have it; companies aren't releasing it. And why is that? To confuse and deceive the consumer.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Says who?
I love to talk about P2W. It is one of the fair ways of funding MMO. Free players play for free, and those who pay should get some advantage.
And your dollar is as powerful as mine. A level playing field.
And when we only have subs, we don't have free games, and cannot hop from one to another as easily. So today is much better.
If someone refutes your anecdote-based assertions with data, you claim the data is biased or not reliable. If someone rather deal with facts and doesn't want to engage you on the definition of terms created solely to present bias (Pay to Win) then you say they are dodging the subject. If we link reports and articles from specific companies with their numbers then you say either that's just one company or that they have bias in their reports.
It doesn't make a difference that companies like Deloitte and Erst&Young find the data reliable enough to reference. It doesn't make a difference that industry experts cite the data in major conferences and presentations at professional conventions.
Basically, you believe what you want to believe and you will not allow any amount of truth to sway that. You will always give reason why real numbers - something that few, if any, of the F2P-averse crowd ever have to back their argument - are suspect and cannot be deemed true or reliable.
And this is why any reasonable conversation on this topic is impossible. It definitely isn't for lack of trying.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A few years ago if you bought in game currency with real money and used that to buy top tier gear off auction channels you where subject to having your account banned and losing everything you bought because it was bad for the in game economy. Now that developers have replaced gold farmers as the middleman in such transactions it suddenly is ok for it to go on?
Currency conversation is pay 2 win in my book plane and simple just like it was years ago. I would go so far as to say allowing players to sell subscriptions is pretty much crossing the line. When did developer focus turn more to undercutting the gold farmers profits rather than trying to stop them?
There's data out there, but most of it you'd have to shell out money for, simply because that kind of data is valuable. Here are some free sources for you, several of which explain MAU, ARPU/ARPPU and other terms regularly used in these discussions.
Puzzle Pirate's numbers
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4046/what_are_the_rewards_of_.php
Here's one for a MUD, which is rather interesting
http://bc-dev.net/2013/04/29/maiden-desmodus-player-and-revenue-data/
Some individual numbers here for MMOs as well as a lot of casual games
http://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/gdc2012/slides/Summit_Social & Online Games/Greer_Emily_Core Games Real.pdf
More individual numbers. Of special note is the spike for Shaiya and other eastern PVP games
http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/11/arppu-in-freemium-games/
And if you have the cash and don't trust SDR's report for whatever reason, here's another one:
http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/12/06/inside-virtual-goods-tracking-the-us-virtual-goods-market-2011-–-2012-is-here/
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You were banned for violating the EULA, not because it was bad for the economy. How it affected the economy had no part in the banning.
Now, as for the second part, most of the original MMOs weren't designed to support such trades, which is why they had more negative affects. When the devs support such trades, they build the game around the feature, making it part of the game rather than a metagame they would otherwise be forced to contend with and correct against.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This information is outdated and false. Premium Ammo/Consumables are now purchasable with in-game currency and, anyone who uses RL money to pay for them is an idiot.
You forgot to add this : that can't be acquired with the in-game currency. The most important part.
What it all boils down to is that the term "pay to win" is a term used to insult free-to-play online games and unless your intent is to bash and troll there is not much reason to apply it.
Any free to play game is going to have to sell things in order for the product to provide a revenue stream and be profitable. Therefore, a well-designed free to play game has to be balanced so that new players can have fun and be pulled into the game without spending money, but then be required to have to make purchases as they spend more and more time playing it. And those players that wish to be competitive at endgame, yes, they should absolutely be required to need to make regular purchases in order to remain more competitive than players who are unwilling to make purchases; purchases which support the company that provides the experience.
These games must provide incentives for players to spend money so of course they must sell useful items. Therefore players who never make purchases should naturally have a harder time. And this is totally reasonable.
Who am I competing with if I go bowling? Or play a round of golf? These are games that I can do by myself with no AI, no other person even has to be around. There is no AI on a golf course or on the bowling lanes. I can't really be said to be competing with myself either since there are absolute highs (for bowling) and lows (for golf) that are literally impossible to go beyond.
Just because something can be acquired through the game without using real currency DOESN'T make it right.
MMORPGs are all about spending time to improve.
Time savers, are big part of P2W that a lot of simple-minded players seem to be "OK" with.
Being able to get XY and Z with in game currency is the defence every MMO that goes down the P2W route makes sure it now has. You know it is P2W, I know it is P2W, lets just call it P2W and stop buying into the smoke screen MMO's have put this behind.
Your last paragraph, come on do you really believe that? They make a feature of gold selling so that makes it fine? How do the devs know how much gold players are going to buy and what they are going to do with it? You cannot be sure what effect allowing players to buy potentially unlimited amounts of gold will be. The effect on the game economy must be very distorting.
As to your previous points on game data veracity, I accept you know your data sources. I am not sure you understand how any data has to be taken with a pinch of salt. You seem to have more faith in data about population figures in games than climate scientists have in data about climate change, or political advisors have in polling predictions. Problems with data sampling, definitions of MMO's and the size of the data pool are genuine concerns. I do lean towards the interpretation you have given, but it is the F2P crowds blind faith in anything positive for F2P games that makes it very hard to have a meaningful discussion on here about these surveys. You are trying to put all the blame on the non F2P crowd, as if bias is not on both sides.
Player C has been playing for several months, and has finally reached an advanced level.
Player D started playing 2 weeks ago, and last week he bought tons of boosts and epic gear, he is now a higher ranking than Player C.
Players D and C meet, Player D annihilates Player C.
Which one has the advantage?
Yeah, it's a trick question, either way you look at it, the guy that bought his way into the game has the advantage, even if it's only time.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Look, we get it that you have some burning hatred against a business model, but you either a) have no clue what you are talking about or b) are lying and hoping you won't get called on it.
Rolling into a PVP game and buying up epic gear from the cash shop that isn't otherwise obtainable in game?
It's kinda silly. As silly as always using these PVP example when the majority of people will rarely if ever see such a scenario because they do not like and will not be involved in PVP. After all, from a PvE perspective your argument falls apart.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
His argument doesn't fall apart on PvE.
Player X gains gold, resources, gear, "you name it" faster.
This directly reflects in the ingame market. Some players have easier paths in gaining gold or resources so they can manage the market as they please or they gain gear they can sell for a fitting price.
The players who aren't abusing the microtransaction are without doubt left behind
Thus microtransactions are fine in a single-player game where you actions doesn't affect anyone else.
In multiplayer enviroment with economy/pvp/whatevs someone gaining unfounded advantage affects everyone.
Incorrect.
People can buy gold with RMT that can buy said item which in turns make it P2W. Granted there is no MMO that comes to mind where one can get top notch quality via game currency. EVE is one but then again you lose your items when your destroyed. DDO fits this bill but it is more reliant on class builds and EDs than anything, but DDOs balance is completely fubared though.
sadly for you, F2P devs are smarter than that
many (hell, nearly all) F2P MMOs that sport pay-to-win cash shop items also:
1) have Open World PvP, so you cannot possibly run away from it
2) tune the difficulty of the endgame for the cash shop buyer's level, meaning that if your char hasnt invested a fairly big amount of money in the cash shop to enhance his enchantments, damage, gear score, whatever.... your figthing an uphill battle
3) #1 and #2 both at once
whats even funnier is that most of the time, the devs themselves wont even have to bother reminding you that without paying a shitload of money your undesirable.
the community will do it for them.
- join raid group
- leader inspects you and finds out your not fully decked thru cash shop means
- kicks you out and replaces you with someone who has paid money to be better than you, hence more relevant to the raid's interest, greater guarantee of success, faster run, you name it
- you wander around alone for a while, till you finally come into terms with the notion that noone wants to take freeloaders in endgame content because...well...the game's difficulty is purposedly set to make them a bad pick
- quit game, jump to another game hoping it will be different, just to have the same cycle repeat
not so smart cookie, sorry
And why was it in the EULA to begin with? Yea part of it is that companies don't want others profiting from their work but another part of it is that they did not want to have to have to deal with all the downsides such activities caused such as mass farming, stolen accounts and price inflation.
What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
Game companies did not change anything around the economy, all they did was internalize the process so they could profit from it rather than letting some outside company do it. All the issues it causes except for getting your account stolen are still there. Allowing the trade of in game currency for real money changes how people play the game, maybe it's subtle but it's there and if you pay attention long enough it will start to bother you.
I play a lot of modern F2P games and I still raid in EQ2 with a Sub. The way I play those F2P games and the way I play EQ2 are very different. And after years of bouncing from one F2P to another I have come to the conclusion that I prefer a game where I don't have to balance the choices I make in game against my willingness to spend more money all the time. That's not to say all F2P and B2P games are bad. The converted Sub to F2P/B2P games with a Sub option have a few good examples the best of which is TSW but on the whole F2P and B2P games are the short term consumable fast food of the video game industry.
Q: What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
A: Because in most cases it is transparent to you as a player. Loot tables, storage space, gold sinks (ex: neon haircuts in UO) and other aspects of gameplay are built to support or regulate the flow of items and currency in and out of the game.
One of the most innovative solutions was the creation of in-game transferrable items for account/character services. Ultima Online was one of the first to adopt this system back in 2003 using tokens. The next most notable use of that system was EVE Online's PLEX in 2008. Since then several other games, including the recently released Guild Wars 2, have incorporated similar systems.
In many games, the changes were to stem such transfers altogether by creating multiple currencies so that having gobs of game gold was less effective, especially at the higher tiers of gameplay where the more needed items can only be purchased with non-transferrable currency, often obtained from questing or faction/objective farming.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
We will have to agree to disagree I guess. All those systems you talk about where first and foremost designed to get players to spend more real money than a $15 month sub could pull. Where you see the companies trying to solve a issue for their consumers I see a company trying to maximize their profits at the expense of game play mechanics.
For me the rise of F2P and B2P in MMO's has corresponded with a decrease in depth of systems and content and I don't think it's a coincidence. Modern MMO's are meant to be consumed and thrown away not lived in for years.
Since the beginning of time, players have looked for the easiest, shortest route to their destination. They've downloaded strategy guides, looked up quests on the internet, paid for gold, paid for characters, used exploits, rolled FotM classes, used leveling enhancements, created twinks, multi-boxed... you name it. They all give players an advantage. Players like to one up other players. They'll do anything, fair and unfair, to achieve it. The goal is to be on top. Best gear, best class, best guild, best PVPer, best everything. Knowing this, the whole world has created avenues to assist players in achieving this... we have websites dedicated to games, gold farmers, leveling services, eBay, enhanced gaming equipment, macros, add-ons, auction houses... and yes, even in-game cash shops.
Whether you pay for it or not, you cannot escape the fact that you will always have something that someone else does not at some point in the game. By definition, this gives you an advantage over someone else. That's why there can never be balance... bought or otherwise.
Sure. And it is no difference than those who spend time (playing 20 hours instead of 2 in the 2 weeks), or spend "friendship" (have higher level friends helping leveling by grouping & killing monsters).
And why should people be buying advantages? It is a level system. Anyone can buy into it.