Originally posted by Kazuhiro Your correct, you have the only "real" definition of Pay-2-Win. Sadly a lot of quite frankly stupid/ignorant people today seem to have a messed up definition of it.
This is why this topic is such a waste of time. Too many ppl think they are the only ones who have the correct opinion and everyone else is just stupid or uneducated.
It's still your opinion. Opinions are not fact.
The original pay to win situation was buying something a free player couldn't earn through in game time. Now all it means is a paying player did something faster and the free player feels entitled to be on the same lvl as them...regardless of time spent.
If you don't like how a cash shop is set up don't play the game. No one will miss you if you don't play.
To me the definition of "Pay-to-Win" has always been something in an MMO that let you gain an in-game advantage. In almost all F2P/B2P MMOs you can get some of the best gear in the game with real life money, usually by converting real life money to game currency and buying epics. For example, I can gear my character in GW2 or Neverwinter in full "epics" with real life money.
I keep hearing players and developers now say that if you can get this gear in game with game currency, it isn't "Pay-to-Win". When did this become the definition become the norm?
If I can get the best gear in the game with real life money, and I can get it with in-game currency. It is still "Pay-to-Win". Because usually you can buy in-game currency with real life money.
Star Citizen and Chris Roberts recently took this approach. In Star Citizen you can buy all the ships with real life money. When people said it was "Pay-to-Win", RSI said it isn't "Pay-to-Win" because you can buy the ships in game.
So am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
I have seen that dozens of times. That is one sample of a niche game and what worked for that niche game. In that game what worked was blatant pay-to-win. And I don't disagree that pay-to-win might actually help the developer make money, but it isn't good for the gamer.
I have seen that dozens of times. That is one sample of a niche game and what worked for that niche game. In that game what worked was blatant pay-to-win. And I don't disagree that pay-to-win might actually help the developer make money, but it isn't good for the gamer.
Depends on the gamer. A lot of people are enjoying games like Neverwinter or GW2 without paying a dime in a cash shop and happy to not have a sub.
I know I enjoy being able to play multiple MMOs without worrying about any subscriptions. Especially if I don't play one for a couple months.
So maybe, the ultra hardcore gotta be the best guy will be hurt by this. But maybe, these games weren't really developed for them.
Well by these standards every mmo inte the world is p2w, I bought gold in Wow and full epic after that. How is this different then a cash shop, except its a thrid party that gets the cash.
All games that don't have a cash shop you can always buy from a third party who will sell you gold or gear.
Tell us your username and we can have your account deleted.
You can get money in RL by robbing a pensioner instead of working, it's quicker and easier but against the rules.
Power leveling is in worst case against the eula, not against the law.
robbing a pensioner is against the law.
If you can't make the difference maybe you spend to much time in games.
The EULA is the law of the game world, the Law is the law of the country where you live. The analogy stands as is.
To me the definition of "Pay-to-Win" has always been something in an MMO that let you gain an in-game advantage. In almost all F2P/B2P MMOs you can get some of the best gear in the game with real life money, usually by converting real life money to game currency and buying epics. For example, I can gear my character in GW2 or Neverwinter in full "epics" with real life money.
I keep hearing players and developers now say that if you can get this gear in game with game currency, it isn't "Pay-to-Win". When did this become the definition become the norm?
If I can get the best gear in the game with real life money, and I can get it with in-game currency. It is still "Pay-to-Win". Because usually you can buy in-game currency with real life money.
Star Citizen and Chris Roberts recently took this approach. In Star Citizen you can buy all the ships with real life money. When people said it was "Pay-to-Win", RSI said it isn't "Pay-to-Win" because you can buy the ships in game.
So am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
The way I see it, Pay2win is when you can buy a item with money that wont drop in game.
Neverwinter is pay2win... those dam pet wont drop unless you buy from shop. Gw2 isn;t , u can farm and find everything in game.
Advantage and convenience sell and other don't. IF you think about it what can they sell that dosn't gave player an advantage ? Bags? no because you can farm more with more space and spend less time going to town. Xp boost? lvl faster then other player. Char slot? having the advantage of saving 5min of make a new account lol
Costumes and cosmetic maybe the only thing BUT they do not sell. also costumes and cosmetic can be seen as an advantage too, what if people party with u more because they know you support the game? and pick the shiner char over the avg looking one?
anything they sell will give an advantage one way or another. I guess it where you draw the line, my line is when u get to buy items that wont drop in game
To me the definition of "Pay-to-Win" has always been something in an MMO that let you gain an in-game advantage. In almost all F2P/B2P MMOs you can get some of the best gear in the game with real life money, usually by converting real life money to game currency and buying epics. For example, I can gear my character in GW2 or Neverwinter in full "epics" with real life money.
I keep hearing players and developers now say that if you can get this gear in game with game currency, it isn't "Pay-to-Win". When did this become the definition become the norm?
If I can get the best gear in the game with real life money, and I can get it with in-game currency. It is still "Pay-to-Win". Because usually you can buy in-game currency with real life money.
Star Citizen and Chris Roberts recently took this approach. In Star Citizen you can buy all the ships with real life money. When people said it was "Pay-to-Win", RSI said it isn't "Pay-to-Win" because you can buy the ships in game.
So am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
You are correct. The term to accurately describe the cash shop model, since F2P isn't anything much more than a marketing term. Developers also try to obfuscate the term B2P. GW2 is a perfect example of a cash shop model game that clothes itself as B2P.
Do you seriously imply that when you are telling a story about wars, it is the same as warring yourself?
There is no competition in story telling. Unless you are on some speech contest...
No, but if the story is being told interactively you will have conflict with something. How else are you going to provide the feedback that makes the story interactive. This is the very reason why "games" like Journey are having the debates pop up around them like they are.
Originally posted by SoMuchMass
I have seen that dozens of times. That is one sample of a niche game and what worked for that niche game. In that game what worked was blatant pay-to-win. And I don't disagree that pay-to-win might actually help the developer make money, but it isn't good for the gamer.
And similar metrics are being shown in other games. Its why many games are taking the route that they are.
Why though do you feel its not good for the gamer? How is it any different from any other payment model? The "p2w" obviously did no harm to the game as players did not leave in droves, and rather clearly not everyone started paying. Apparently those players were not impacted enough by those who were to either leave or pay. so why is this bad?
Originally posted by Laughing-man No one fooled anyone. There is a broad definition. Just like how broad the definition of MMO is now.
Some of the longest, nastiest, name-callingist arguments this forum has ever seen consisted of two opposing teams equivocating over somewhat vague terminology for many pages...
Just sayin', it's sort of a recreational sport 'round here.
People that talk about p2w forget one important aspect. There has to be something to "win", I never PvP, so there's nothing for me to win. You can't win at pve, closest thing to a win is beating a hard boss, but there's always another more harderest boss right around the next corner...so you still haven't won. P2W is strictly for PvP, and there's only one game I'll ever PvP in (since they're the only ones that did it right) and that's DAoC.
People that buy all thier gear instead of earning it are also usually the ones complaining how the game has no content...it has content, you just elected to not play it...
People that talk about p2w forget one important aspect. There has to be something to "win", I never PvP, so there's nothing for me to win.
That's a bit of an illusion, since PVE players can (and do) create voluntary measuring sticks to establish their own heirarchy, when the devs fail to provide one. "Best in slot" gear, or who-has-the-biggest-bank-account, or who's on top of progression this week, lookit mah mount worship meh...here, I'll park right on the mailbox...
I suppose you could find an idyllic Xanadu completely non-competitive society somewhere, some time--but it wouldn't have any Americans in it.
I personally am not a fan of anything that allows players to buy power in a game (armor, weapons, with stats, etc). But I don't generally have a problem with things like experience potions or convenience items like removing your experience debt, etc, so long as players don't feel like they have to purchase those items to be competitive. It's obviously more meaningful in some games (PvP especially) than others.
My main problem with allowing players to buy items of power is that part of your status as a player is the gear that your wearing. After a while you are capping out or you are hitting a soft cap in a skills based game and the experience doesn't really matter, but the gear makes a huge difference. In the old days you saw a player with awesome gear and you wondered how they got it as a starting player. Or you envied them if they had more than you as a veteran. That gear was part of their trials and tribulations as a player. I don't like allowing players to simply buy their way past that. One of the aspects of MMOs is the competitiveness. I don't like the idea of thinking that the players who are the best equipped are simply the ones with the most money.
With experience potions, you get similar boosts from things like rest experience which most games feature anyway. After the initial race for power it really doesn't mean much.
I have no problem with the free to play model though, in fact I prefer it. It lets you try the games, see if it is something you want to invest money in and then go from there. But there's a big difference between some of the models. If I feel I have to spend an money just to be competitive, I'll find another game. If I like a game though I have no problem unlocking things like account perks or the occasional experience potion if I have a day cleared out.
That makes no difference, purpose remains the same. You are not there to fight anything, you are there for the story.
You pull very poor strawmans.
First, if you do not know what a term means, do not use it. Especially in an attempt to discredit. While you may be cheered on by the moronic masses in the end all it does is make you look stupid. That is not a strawman by any definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Second, of course it makes a difference. You can compete against time for example, or the ever classic moral choice where you have to compete with yourself over which path to take. You can even compete against the environment directly, ala staying warm in a cold climate, or hydrated in a hot. None of these are direct fights, all of them are conflicts, and all of them require some form of competition to surpass. They are also all integral to the story, as without them you do not have one.
People that talk about p2w forget one important aspect. There has to be something to "win", I never PvP, so there's nothing for me to win. You can't win at pve, closest thing to a win is beating a hard boss, but there's always another more harderest boss right around the next corner...so you still haven't won. P2W is strictly for PvP, and there's only one game I'll ever PvP in (since they're the only ones that did it right) and that's DAoC.
People that buy all thier gear instead of earning it are also usually the ones complaining how the game has no content...it has content, you just elected to not play it...
By your logic F2P means these games should be 100% free.
P2W is just an acronym that describes how the cash shop model works. Player buys an item from the cash shop and gains an advantage.
Except you didn't. You cannot have a story without conflict, and you cannot have conflict with competition. Are you being dense on purpose because you do not want to admit you are wrong or what?
Originally posted by Livnthedream http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallaciousExcept you didn't. You cannot have a story without conflict, and you cannot have conflict with competition. Are you being dense on purpose because you do not want to admit you are wrong or what?
Are you one of those people who believe that repeating same thing over and over makes it true?
Except you didn't. You cannot have a story without conflict, and you cannot have conflict with competition. Are you being dense on purpose because you do not want to admit you are wrong or what?
Are you one of those people who believe that repeating same thing over and over makes it true?
Sorry, that is not how it works...
Says the person doing exactly that. Your statement did not refute mine. If you for some reason honestly believe it did then feel free to clarify.
Yep, also the profitability of F2P speaks for itself. By vocal minority, I mean the people that lurk on these forums that have a vendetta against the payment method and call every new F2P or B2P game 'P2W', even when they clearly are not.
Says the person doing exactly that. Your statement did not refute mine. If you for some reason honestly believe it did then feel free to clarify.
Not at all.
I say: I make an argument that games are played for different reasons, with different goals and purposes.
You reply: "Games are competitive by nature." - just plain statement with no backup nor relevance to any what I just said, only repeating fallacy you said before.
I say: In RPG games, the purpose isn't to beat NPC, the purpose is completion.
You reply: "without it there would never be a story told. Any time there is conflict, there is competition." - you just again repeat same ole ole that there is a "competition", extraordinary stupid statement.
I simply point out that because there is a war in the story does not make a story teller a warrior and that only case when there would be a competition is if that was a case of speech contest.
Your reply is: "No, but if the story is being told interactively you will have conflict with something."
Which I easily point out to fact that it does not change a thing about story telling not being a competition since story telling is still a story telling, regardless. Being it interactive or not.
And there we go again with your reply: "Second, of course it makes a difference.You can compete against..." - Yes, storz can contain a competition, not the story telling(the game itself). Sadly you cannot distinguish the difference and just keep repeating yourself over and over - pulling strawman after straman.
[mod edit]. I refuted your statement several times and you are not capable of any counter argument but screaming "there is a competition! does not matter where, how, whether it makes sense or is relevant but there is!"
Sorry, the world isn't all about competition, some people just enjoy the ride.
Comments
This is why this topic is such a waste of time. Too many ppl think they are the only ones who have the correct opinion and everyone else is just stupid or uneducated.
It's still your opinion. Opinions are not fact.
The original pay to win situation was buying something a free player couldn't earn through in game time. Now all it means is a paying player did something faster and the free player feels entitled to be on the same lvl as them...regardless of time spent.
If you don't like how a cash shop is set up don't play the game. No one will miss you if you don't play.
http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win Shows it rather clearly. Why do you continue to fail to watch it?
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
no ur not wrong at all. thats exactly how it is!
My eyes hurt reading this.
Do you seriously imply that when you are telling a story about wars, it is the same as warring yourself?
There is no competition in story telling. Unless you are on some speech contest...
I have seen that dozens of times. That is one sample of a niche game and what worked for that niche game. In that game what worked was blatant pay-to-win. And I don't disagree that pay-to-win might actually help the developer make money, but it isn't good for the gamer.
If you're winning something because you paid. Then it's pay 2 win. Or maybe it's if it makes you feel like a winner? I don't know who cares.
I'm having fun.
Depends on the gamer. A lot of people are enjoying games like Neverwinter or GW2 without paying a dime in a cash shop and happy to not have a sub.
I know I enjoy being able to play multiple MMOs without worrying about any subscriptions. Especially if I don't play one for a couple months.
So maybe, the ultra hardcore gotta be the best guy will be hurt by this. But maybe, these games weren't really developed for them.
The EULA is the law of the game world, the Law is the law of the country where you live. The analogy stands as is.
The way I see it, Pay2win is when you can buy a item with money that wont drop in game.
Neverwinter is pay2win... those dam pet wont drop unless you buy from shop. Gw2 isn;t , u can farm and find everything in game.
Advantage and convenience sell and other don't. IF you think about it what can they sell that dosn't gave player an advantage ? Bags? no because you can farm more with more space and spend less time going to town. Xp boost? lvl faster then other player. Char slot? having the advantage of saving 5min of make a new account lol
Costumes and cosmetic maybe the only thing BUT they do not sell. also costumes and cosmetic can be seen as an advantage too, what if people party with u more because they know you support the game? and pick the shiner char over the avg looking one?
anything they sell will give an advantage one way or another. I guess it where you draw the line, my line is when u get to buy items that wont drop in game
You are correct. The term to accurately describe the cash shop model, since F2P isn't anything much more than a marketing term. Developers also try to obfuscate the term B2P. GW2 is a perfect example of a cash shop model game that clothes itself as B2P.
No, but if the story is being told interactively you will have conflict with something. How else are you going to provide the feedback that makes the story interactive. This is the very reason why "games" like Journey are having the debates pop up around them like they are.
And similar metrics are being shown in other games. Its why many games are taking the route that they are.
Why though do you feel its not good for the gamer? How is it any different from any other payment model? The "p2w" obviously did no harm to the game as players did not leave in droves, and rather clearly not everyone started paying. Apparently those players were not impacted enough by those who were to either leave or pay. so why is this bad?
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Some of the longest, nastiest, name-callingist arguments this forum has ever seen consisted of two opposing teams equivocating over somewhat vague terminology for many pages...
Just sayin', it's sort of a recreational sport 'round here.
That makes no difference, purpose remains the same. You are not there to fight anything, you are there for the story.
You pull very poor strawmans.
People that talk about p2w forget one important aspect. There has to be something to "win", I never PvP, so there's nothing for me to win. You can't win at pve, closest thing to a win is beating a hard boss, but there's always another more harderest boss right around the next corner...so you still haven't won. P2W is strictly for PvP, and there's only one game I'll ever PvP in (since they're the only ones that did it right) and that's DAoC.
People that buy all thier gear instead of earning it are also usually the ones complaining how the game has no content...it has content, you just elected to not play it...
That's a bit of an illusion, since PVE players can (and do) create voluntary measuring sticks to establish their own heirarchy, when the devs fail to provide one. "Best in slot" gear, or who-has-the-biggest-bank-account, or who's on top of progression this week, lookit mah mount worship meh...here, I'll park right on the mailbox...
I suppose you could find an idyllic Xanadu completely non-competitive society somewhere, some time--but it wouldn't have any Americans in it.
I personally am not a fan of anything that allows players to buy power in a game (armor, weapons, with stats, etc). But I don't generally have a problem with things like experience potions or convenience items like removing your experience debt, etc, so long as players don't feel like they have to purchase those items to be competitive. It's obviously more meaningful in some games (PvP especially) than others.
My main problem with allowing players to buy items of power is that part of your status as a player is the gear that your wearing. After a while you are capping out or you are hitting a soft cap in a skills based game and the experience doesn't really matter, but the gear makes a huge difference. In the old days you saw a player with awesome gear and you wondered how they got it as a starting player. Or you envied them if they had more than you as a veteran. That gear was part of their trials and tribulations as a player. I don't like allowing players to simply buy their way past that. One of the aspects of MMOs is the competitiveness. I don't like the idea of thinking that the players who are the best equipped are simply the ones with the most money.
With experience potions, you get similar boosts from things like rest experience which most games feature anyway. After the initial race for power it really doesn't mean much.
I have no problem with the free to play model though, in fact I prefer it. It lets you try the games, see if it is something you want to invest money in and then go from there. But there's a big difference between some of the models. If I feel I have to spend an money just to be competitive, I'll find another game. If I like a game though I have no problem unlocking things like account perks or the occasional experience potion if I have a day cleared out.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
First, if you do not know what a term means, do not use it. Especially in an attempt to discredit. While you may be cheered on by the moronic masses in the end all it does is make you look stupid. That is not a strawman by any definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Second, of course it makes a difference. You can compete against time for example, or the ever classic moral choice where you have to compete with yourself over which path to take. You can even compete against the environment directly, ala staying warm in a cold climate, or hydrated in a hot. None of these are direct fights, all of them are conflicts, and all of them require some form of competition to surpass. They are also all integral to the story, as without them you do not have one.
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
It does not for reasons I pointed out, even several times.
And that is what makes it a strawman...repeating same fallacious argument over and over.
By your logic F2P means these games should be 100% free.
P2W is just an acronym that describes how the cash shop model works. Player buys an item from the cash shop and gains an advantage.
F2P games are free, that is why they are F2P...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious
Except you didn't. You cannot have a story without conflict, and you cannot have conflict with competition. Are you being dense on purpose because you do not want to admit you are wrong or what?
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Are you one of those people who believe that repeating same thing over and over makes it true?
Sorry, that is not how it works...
Says the person doing exactly that. Your statement did not refute mine. If you for some reason honestly believe it did then feel free to clarify.
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Yep, also the profitability of F2P speaks for itself. By vocal minority, I mean the people that lurk on these forums that have a vendetta against the payment method and call every new F2P or B2P game 'P2W', even when they clearly are not.
Not at all.
I say:
I make an argument that games are played for different reasons, with different goals and purposes.
You reply:
"Games are competitive by nature." - just plain statement with no backup nor relevance to any what I just said, only repeating fallacy you said before.
I say:
In RPG games, the purpose isn't to beat NPC, the purpose is completion.
You reply:
"without it there would never be a story told. Any time there is conflict, there is competition." - you just again repeat same ole ole that there is a "competition", extraordinary stupid statement.
I simply point out that because there is a war in the story does not make a story teller a warrior and that only case when there would be a competition is if that was a case of speech contest.
Your reply is:
"No, but if the story is being told interactively you will have conflict with something."
Which I easily point out to fact that it does not change a thing about story telling not being a competition since story telling is still a story telling, regardless. Being it interactive or not.
And there we go again with your reply:
"Second, of course it makes a difference.You can compete against..." - Yes, storz can contain a competition, not the story telling(the game itself). Sadly you cannot distinguish the difference and just keep repeating yourself over and over - pulling strawman after straman.
[mod edit]. I refuted your statement several times and you are not capable of any counter argument but screaming "there is a competition! does not matter where, how, whether it makes sense or is relevant but there is!"
Sorry, the world isn't all about competition, some people just enjoy the ride.