So say SOE adds a 100 dollar AK-47 to the cash shop. They also sell ammo for said gun at 5 dollars a pop. The gun can be found in game but it is super rare and in highly contested areas with heavy zombie populations making it a test of patience for anyone to get. The ammo is also a rare spawn and in a completely different highly contested area with heavy enemy populations. If a new player just joins the game, spawns in and proceeds to spend 200 dollars to buy the gun and 20 clips of ammo then its fine because clearly everyone else is just too cheap and not because the game is P2W?
If all people would be willing and able to afford to spent those 200 USD on the gun, there would be no "P2W" debate.
It's really that simple.
Wow, that is some pretty terrible logic. Well I suppose ignorance is bliss and you feel free to have to spend an arbitrary amount in a game to keep up with the curve. I'll be over here paying my 15 a month in sub fees and enjoying the experience that isn't corrupted by a P2W cash shop.
Originally posted by Kefo Wow, that is some pretty terrible logic.
No, the terrible logic is that everyone else should be allowed to spent as much as you are willing and able to spent on things you you find worthy.
You are only proving my point.
Some models migth not be for you but that does not make them P2W, nickle-and-diming, cash grabs or w/e derogatory term you throw around. Every business has the right to setup their revenue model the best they see fit.
Also, your comment about keeping up with the curve makes no sense since it is the flexible payment models of F2P and cash shops that allow people to take shorcuts on required content they do not want to go through or just drop money on specific things they like. That way people can send clear message to developers what their customers find worthy and more such content and features can be developed.
I'm still thinking about playing this game. A few days into alpha is way to early to make a decision. It wouldn't be alpha if it didn't have problems.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
No, the terrible logic is that everyone else should be allowed to spent as much as you are willing and able to spent on things you you find worthy.
You are only proving my point.
Some models migth not be for you but that does not make them P2W, nickle-and-diming, cash grabs or w/e derogatory term you throw around. Every business has the right to setup their revenue model the best they see fit.
Also, your comment about keeping up with the curve makes no sense since it is the flexible payment models of F2P and cash shops that allow people to take shorcuts on required content they do not want to go through or just drop money on specific things they like. That way people can send clear message to developers what their customers find worthy and more such content and features can be developed.
As a previous poster said you really should read your posts before you make them to make sure they make sense.
I do agree that any company can set up a cash model as they see fit. Its their game so they can do what they want with it. No argument there.
The rest of your post is nonsense however. Good F2P games can have plenty of cash shop items that are simply fluff. They are cosmetic in nature and don't impart a advantage to anyone who buys them. You support the game with this model and everyone plays happily on with a level playing field.
My point with keeping up with the curve was to your post about if everyone just bought the 200 dollar item then there would be no P2W argument. That would be keeping up with the curve. Everyone has to buy the item in order to even stand a chance in the world otherwise you are just bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.
Like I said though you can feel free to spend upwards of hundreds of dollars a month on a "free" game while I spend 15 on a sub and no one enjoys a distinct advantage.
Originally posted by Kefo I do agree that any company can set up a cash model as they see fit. Its their game so they can do what they want with it. No argument there.
Yet, you go on with "good F2P" games.
See, my post makes perfect sense, proof right there - you are projecting your own bias onto developers and other players. You are telling the devs and players how games should be monetize and what people should spent money on. If they do not comply, you call it P2W, bad monetization.
Its not much of a zombie survival game but more of a human survival game.
I hope this is not surprising to you - all PvP survival game are always about players killing eachother.
This is the CORE of H1Z1 (again PvE is a ruleset that IMO will fail miserably in this game - because it is so trivial to survive without having to worry about players killing you, sort of makes the game really boring after a while).
That's not really a given. At least, surviving just other humans doesn't have to be.
It's all in implementation. If they add hordes and a horde mentality to zombies, then it could most certainly be about zombie survival as well as human survival. Coincidentally, if the need is great enough (20 zombies in that supermarket), players are much more likely to cooperate to achieve both's goals.
If they leave it like it is (scarce zombies that can be outran due to the fact you'll only ever run into 1 or 2 at a time), then yea, it's going to be just like DayZ.
I do agree that any company can set up a cash model as they see fit. Its their game so they can do what they want with it. No argument there.
Yet, you go on with "good F2P" games.
See, my post makes perfect sense, proof right there - you are projecting your own bias onto developers and other players. You are telling the devs and players how games should be monetize and what people should spent money on. If they do not comply, you call it P2W, bad monetization.
Yeah there are good F2P games. Those that sell cosmetic items and items that don't give anyone an advantage over anyone else. Devs can monetize the game as they see fit but if they start putting items in that give you a advantage over other players then it becomes pay 2 win. Like it or not that would be the definition of P2W.
Originally posted by KefoDevs can monetize the game as they see fit but if they start putting items in that give you a advantage over other players then it becomes pay 2 win. Like it or not that would be the definition of P2W.
That is like calling racing competition a "P2W" because you can't keep up with your 500 USD ford fiesta '85.
Devs can monetize the game as they see fit but if they start putting items in that give you a advantage over other players then it becomes pay 2 win. Like it or not that would be the definition of P2W.
That is like calling racing competition a "P2W" because you can't keep up with your 500 USD ford fiesta '85.
P2W is non-sense.
Your analogies make no sense and most of what you have been posting doesn't make much sense except perhaps in your mind. Since this is more or less equivalent to me arguing with a rock I'll just stop here.
Been testing all weekend and I msut say I am having a blast.. first few days had some server issues but they got sorted out and sunday was perfect.
I have no issues with the airdrops at the moment, its just one big pvp event and not all drops come with weapons. Sure they need some tweaking but thats alpha is for.
Originally posted by Kefo Your analogies make no sense and most of what you have been posting doesn't make much sense except perhaps in your mind. Since this is more or less equivalent to me arguing with a rock I'll just stop here.
Sports, hobbies or any competitive activy have people come in with all sort of equipment, skill or money invested, yet oddly enough only games are being called "P2W".
I do agree that any company can set up a cash model as they see fit. Its their game so they can do what they want with it. No argument there.
Yet, you go on with "good F2P" games.
See, my post makes perfect sense, proof right there - you are projecting your own bias onto developers and other players. You are telling the devs and players how games should be monetize and what people should spent money on. If they do not comply, you call it P2W, bad monetization.
Yeah there are good F2P games. Those that sell cosmetic items and items that don't give anyone an advantage over anyone else. Devs can monetize the game as they see fit but if they start putting items in that give you a advantage over other players then it becomes pay 2 win. Like it or not that would be the definition of P2W.
Sure, but isn't it full loot? And don't items degrade and break over time? That's what my understanding of the game was. I don't think a game can be P2W if a game is full-loot, can it? You might be able to "win" for 30 seconds, but once a group jumps you, that's the end. Also, ammo is limited, so your advantage is negligible.
This is still pay to win regardless how SOE wants to spin it.
You are paying for items that will directly impact combat and will grant a competitive advantage.
Now, it may be that someone else will be the person that benefits from the p2w and it makes no sense to me that anyone would pay for only a chances at getting anything at all. But in the end you are still directly paying for items that will grant an in game advantage.
This is still pay to win regardless how SOE wants to spin it.
You are paying for items that will directly impact combat and will grant a competitive advantage.
Now, it may be that someone else will be the person that benefits from the p2w and it makes no sense to me that anyone would pay for only a chances at getting anything at all. But in the end you are still directly paying for items that will grant an in game advantage.
What if the airdrops weren't paid? Then it's simply a random PvP event, right? This is sorta where I fail to see your point. It might be paid, but it's no different than a random PvP event. You get absolutely no advantage other than it will be dropped somewhere in your general area. Then the people who are really resourceful will simply loot your dead body when then kill you.
By the way, The air drops aren't even close to pay to win.
There are airdrops that only have a single pistol in them and other crap like animal traps and wood logs. There are others that have building supplies and yet others that have weapons and ammo. You don't know what you're going.
On top of which, zombies pop out of the drop when it lands. On top of which, everyone on the server hears the drop, sees the drop and anyone within the area goes there to fight over it...
You are paying for and spawning an event in which anyone within range can fight over. You'll get more loot and gear fromt he dead people around the crate than you will from the crate.
Yes it sucks that you are paying for something you might not get, but some people are willing to do that. On top of which, you buy it with station cash, of which, if you have an all station access account you get some of everyone month anyways, and that gives you full access to all of their other games as well... So who cares?
If you don't want to spend the money, don't spend the money. If you think it's pay to win, try and take the air drop from the guys calling them in...
I was hoping they would monetize the game with a "Visit for free, but pay to move in" type of system.
Flags that grant a small plot of land claim for a week(150 SC), so you could build a fort and store stuff safely. Store sold safe storage bins(1000 SC). Icons that would prevent zombie spawns on the claim for a week (150 SC). Zombie resistant doors.(250 SC) Then add in cosmetic apocalypse decorations for your fort inside and out.
This way you could set up a small safe zone, if you pay. Or play free and wander the wastes or depend on your paying friends. I would think this is a better way to go towards financing the game. It doesn't have to make your fort 100% safe for people, just mostly safe and safe for LOOT.
I'm not sure if the maps are big enough for this idea to work, but they are calling it a MMO. Bigger plots of land for guilds would cost more. Which would cut down on the number of guilds.
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
Comments
Wow, that is some pretty terrible logic. Well I suppose ignorance is bliss and you feel free to have to spend an arbitrary amount in a game to keep up with the curve. I'll be over here paying my 15 a month in sub fees and enjoying the experience that isn't corrupted by a P2W cash shop.
No, the terrible logic is that everyone else should be allowed to spent as much as you are willing and able to spent on things you you find worthy.
You are only proving my point.
Some models migth not be for you but that does not make them P2W, nickle-and-diming, cash grabs or w/e derogatory term you throw around. Every business has the right to setup their revenue model the best they see fit.
Also, your comment about keeping up with the curve makes no sense since it is the flexible payment models of F2P and cash shops that allow people to take shorcuts on required content they do not want to go through or just drop money on specific things they like. That way people can send clear message to developers what their customers find worthy and more such content and features can be developed.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
As a previous poster said you really should read your posts before you make them to make sure they make sense.
I do agree that any company can set up a cash model as they see fit. Its their game so they can do what they want with it. No argument there.
The rest of your post is nonsense however. Good F2P games can have plenty of cash shop items that are simply fluff. They are cosmetic in nature and don't impart a advantage to anyone who buys them. You support the game with this model and everyone plays happily on with a level playing field.
My point with keeping up with the curve was to your post about if everyone just bought the 200 dollar item then there would be no P2W argument. That would be keeping up with the curve. Everyone has to buy the item in order to even stand a chance in the world otherwise you are just bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.
Like I said though you can feel free to spend upwards of hundreds of dollars a month on a "free" game while I spend 15 on a sub and no one enjoys a distinct advantage.
Yet, you go on with "good F2P" games.
See, my post makes perfect sense, proof right there - you are projecting your own bias onto developers and other players. You are telling the devs and players how games should be monetize and what people should spent money on. If they do not comply, you call it P2W, bad monetization.
That's not really a given. At least, surviving just other humans doesn't have to be.
It's all in implementation. If they add hordes and a horde mentality to zombies, then it could most certainly be about zombie survival as well as human survival. Coincidentally, if the need is great enough (20 zombies in that supermarket), players are much more likely to cooperate to achieve both's goals.
If they leave it like it is (scarce zombies that can be outran due to the fact you'll only ever run into 1 or 2 at a time), then yea, it's going to be just like DayZ.
Probably that it generates a small amount of income compared to beneficial things.
Yeah there are good F2P games. Those that sell cosmetic items and items that don't give anyone an advantage over anyone else. Devs can monetize the game as they see fit but if they start putting items in that give you a advantage over other players then it becomes pay 2 win. Like it or not that would be the definition of P2W.
So wait, they are charging for "early access' -- and they have a cash shop up and running already?
Doesn't that mean, by all long standing rules, that this game is "released"?
That is like calling racing competition a "P2W" because you can't keep up with your 500 USD ford fiesta '85.
P2W is non-sense.
Your analogies make no sense and most of what you have been posting doesn't make much sense except perhaps in your mind. Since this is more or less equivalent to me arguing with a rock I'll just stop here.
Been testing all weekend and I msut say I am having a blast.. first few days had some server issues but they got sorted out and sunday was perfect.
I have no issues with the airdrops at the moment, its just one big pvp event and not all drops come with weapons. Sure they need some tweaking but thats alpha is for.
Sports, hobbies or any competitive activy have people come in with all sort of equipment, skill or money invested, yet oddly enough only games are being called "P2W".
I am not the one to be a rock here.
Sure, but isn't it full loot? And don't items degrade and break over time? That's what my understanding of the game was. I don't think a game can be P2W if a game is full-loot, can it? You might be able to "win" for 30 seconds, but once a group jumps you, that's the end. Also, ammo is limited, so your advantage is negligible.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
This is still pay to win regardless how SOE wants to spin it.
You are paying for items that will directly impact combat and will grant a competitive advantage.
Now, it may be that someone else will be the person that benefits from the p2w and it makes no sense to me that anyone would pay for only a chances at getting anything at all. But in the end you are still directly paying for items that will grant an in game advantage.
All die, so die well.
What if the airdrops weren't paid? Then it's simply a random PvP event, right? This is sorta where I fail to see your point. It might be paid, but it's no different than a random PvP event. You get absolutely no advantage other than it will be dropped somewhere in your general area. Then the people who are really resourceful will simply loot your dead body when then kill you.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
By the way, The air drops aren't even close to pay to win.
There are airdrops that only have a single pistol in them and other crap like animal traps and wood logs. There are others that have building supplies and yet others that have weapons and ammo. You don't know what you're going.
On top of which, zombies pop out of the drop when it lands. On top of which, everyone on the server hears the drop, sees the drop and anyone within the area goes there to fight over it...
You are paying for and spawning an event in which anyone within range can fight over. You'll get more loot and gear fromt he dead people around the crate than you will from the crate.
Yes it sucks that you are paying for something you might not get, but some people are willing to do that. On top of which, you buy it with station cash, of which, if you have an all station access account you get some of everyone month anyways, and that gives you full access to all of their other games as well... So who cares?
If you don't want to spend the money, don't spend the money. If you think it's pay to win, try and take the air drop from the guys calling them in...
The end.
Ouch. If that's all that's going on, then you might as well take out the few zombies and call it 'Gankfest Unlimited'.
I'm still waiting for EA to sell alpha access to the new Madden. Then again, their not as desperate as Sony is...
I'll stick to 7 Days for now and watch the train wreck that is H1Z1 as it goes by...
I was hoping they would monetize the game with a "Visit for free, but pay to move in" type of system.
Flags that grant a small plot of land claim for a week(150 SC), so you could build a fort and store stuff safely. Store sold safe storage bins(1000 SC). Icons that would prevent zombie spawns on the claim for a week (150 SC). Zombie resistant doors.(250 SC) Then add in cosmetic apocalypse decorations for your fort inside and out.
This way you could set up a small safe zone, if you pay. Or play free and wander the wastes or depend on your paying friends. I would think this is a better way to go towards financing the game. It doesn't have to make your fort 100% safe for people, just mostly safe and safe for LOOT.
I'm not sure if the maps are big enough for this idea to work, but they are calling it a MMO. Bigger plots of land for guilds would cost more. Which would cut down on the number of guilds.
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
An acerbic sense of humor is NOT allowed here.