Sorry. No. Perception is not necessarily reality. Arguing about people's perceived ideas is a fools errand.
A win is competition. Not something you like. Not just something good. The slang term of "win" is not a win. Just like the slang term fail is not a fail.
A perceived win is not necessarily a win. A perceived advantage is not necessarily an advantage. A perceived offense is not necessarily an offense..
Perceptions are not necessarily reality.
People also often mistake not being able to understand something with not agreeing with something.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
To be fair, when one points that a "win" applies to competition, you also have to realize that everything can get turned into a competition, and that type of gamification of even the most mundane aspects in gaming tends to happen a lot as it maximizes the opportunities for players to achieve over others. Even going strictly by Axehilt's posted definition this remains true.
I mean take the incessant nature of many conversations held here. Forum PvP is itself a type of competition largely without reward, but driven pretty singularly by the notion that someone wants to "beat" another forum poster. Whether that is accompanied by delusions of knowledge, logic, or otherwise, it doesn't change that there is a rather fundamental drive to prove oneself over others in many cases.
Even cosmetics is used as a competitive piece, and that becomes more so as the games in question provide more customization or options on that end. Costume competitions, contests, and even impromptu "I look more badass than everyone around me!" is all a competitively driven concept in which players are trying to "win" by being the best dressed, more or less.
The XP over time thing is a much more contextual argument. There are games where it matters and there are games where it does not. The case being how it affects the rest of gameplay. That's not to do with whether or not one considers any given design good or bad, it just goes to say that they have different functions for a resource pool that players can utilize. Be that leaderboards, paying out xp to accrue special equipment, vastly more efficient gameplay leading to players skipping vast chunks of game content others have to muddle their way through, etc. There is room to argue for individual cases that boosted XP gain is in fact a scenario where there are clear winners because it gives them a considerable advantage over others, and other instances where is't a moot point because XP only takes one to a fixed point and consequently there isn't an effective means to competitively rank players in the long term with it.
Getting hung up on the most semantic aspect of this isn't particularly informative or useful, honestly. And I can't say bickering single-mindedly for either side is particularly logical either.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
That is the point some here do not understand. That we are defining and using a definition. It doesn't matter to what degree, only that it is, or is not.
If it is, THEN you can discuss to what degree.
Some here can not get past that and want to simply try to re-define a "win" based on severe it is. Severity of perceived win, does not matter when defining.
Example: EXP boosts are a Obvious win. How much of a boost, or the function of them in each game doesn't matter. It is a clear advantage.
But claiming that EXP boosts are not an advantage, because they can have little impact doesn't defeat the definition.
And here is the problem. I would say that you are 100% wrong on every count beside your first sentence.
Your example is bait and switch. EXP boosts are 100% not win. It is a clear advantage, as is playing more time, having friends vs pugs, being in a large guild, picking the right class, having a good computer/internet (can be a huge advantage). But you only see paying as an advantage.
Some here changed the definition of win to advantage. But they only see spending money as an advantage.
IF you must pay to win, then it is P2W.
We can go back and forth, that is why all OP should define the discussion.
The discussion we are having is two-fold, defining a "win", then applying that toward paying for it. That is the current subject. They are 2 things.
And many here never took logic or debates in school, so they do not know how to parley and/or debate logically, & instead uses qualifiers, because they can not perceive Another's perception. Unable to imagine their own ideas played out upon another. Many people are not critical thinkers and do not have this ability. It is just human nature. So they latch on to ONE idea of how an exp boost doesn't fit the over-all description and then myopically try to use that, as some argument.
In reality, many do not even understand the context is which they are actually arguing.
Now, if you can not back up and read all of what has been said, you are not doing us any favors.
Because water is water... it is definable and it doesn't matter how much you have of it, or how little, you still call it water. Same applies to a perceived "win". It doesn't matter if you see it is small or insignificant, or someone else see it as a massive win, and substantial.. they are just degrees of "win".
Many can't accept that.. because it becomes personal at that point (& it is when they get irrational) . You can see this happen in their posting, when they have to confront, little or big..? And have to accept an advantage is an advantage. Additionally, continually comparing it's advantage to something else, only makes you understand how little, or small that advantage is. Not whether or not it is one.
That is how definition works. Plastic is Plastic, doesn't matter if it is shavings, or a truck full of it. How much, or the severity of it, does not weigh in on the definition. Only if it is, or is not.
You can not debate it, we know what a definition means and is.
Ugh, I can tell you haven't taken debate class either. I didn't but I think that you are supposed at least stay on topic. Why is everyone trying to drag this out? It's getting pretentious. Guy pays real money for an advantage that lets him WIN pvp over me. He did not put skills or time into this game to WIN over me. This is the issue. I don't give a flying rat's ass about your debate or your long-winded pseudo-intellectual rambling. THIS is the thing, REAL MONEY LEADS TO ADVANTAGE WHICH LEADS TO WIN. Get it?
And exp pots, while irritating, don't bother me as much because let's face it, when was the last time it took MONTHS to get to max lvl? How long does it take getting to cap in Archeage compare to getting BiS? Yeah. Exactly.
I do not get the debate. What is P2W in an MMORPG? Racing games, fighting games, yes, there is something to win. What do you win in an MMORPG? It is a genre that does not let you 'win' anything in comparison to other players, except PVP ofcourse, there you can win or lose.
But on topic. P2W for me is a game where you can buy a PERMANENT advantage, something not obtainable through any other means that makes my character better then someone elses. Looks, storage space etc. Etc. Not P2W for me, they are convenience at best and people shouting P2W at games like PoE make me cringe, you are really desperate then, same goes for FF14, please?..
A lot of people confuse P2W with 'not everything is accessible in game,' there is no debating P2 Advance Faster, P2 Get More Convenience and the like, P2W however? No, not in a PVE enviroment. That said, I despise guaranteed enchantments on gear when in game your chances are about 0.1% with a chance of destroying said item. I call that P2 Frustrate So Much That You Spend Money, it is NOT P2W however, you still do not win anything.
2 cents, there you have em.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I do not get the debate. What is P2W in an MMORPG? Racing games, fighting games, yes, there is something to win. What do you win in an MMORPG? It is a genre that does not let you 'win' anything in comparison to other players, except PVP ofcourse, there you can win or lose.
But on topic. P2W for me is a game where you can buy a PERMANENT advantage, something not obtainable through any other means that makes my character better then someone elses. Looks, storage space etc. Etc. Not P2W for me, they are convenience at best and people shouting P2W at games like PoE make me cringe, you are really desperate then, same goes for FF14, please?..
A lot of people confuse P2W with 'not everything is accessible in game,' there is no debating P2 Advance Faster, P2 Get More Convenience and the like, P2W however? No, not in a PVE enviroment. That said, I despise guaranteed enchantments on gear when in game your chances are about 0.1% with a chance of destroying said item. I call that P2 Frustrate So Much That You Spend Money, it is NOT P2W however, you still do not win anything.
2 cents, there you have em.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yeah I don't feel that there is P2W in a pve environment with item balanced pvp instances like FFXIV. The people who get better gear there faster are simply doing content that I'm not. I don't care if someone is able to do alexander savage before I do. The issue arises in games like Archeage (which I am happily jumping into with the foray of the new server tonight ) where the players themselves are a massive part of the content.
It's not so much about P2W or not imo. Most cash shop games offer advantages to those who pay, which is logical or there wouldn't be much incentive to do so otherwise.
The difference is the measure of P2W, when does it become problematic? Can you literally just dump a ton of money into the game and get a massive power-up?
Games I'm playing or have played recently with very light P2W would be: Planetside 2, SW:TOR. In the former, everything still depends on player skill in the end. But you can still buy a ton more vehicle upgrades and weapons to give you more ways to handle a situation. In TOR, you can't really buy anything that would massively boost your power. But you can still buy stuff from the cash shop and sell them on the auction house for in-game money.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Obtuse much? You guys want to use the dictionary and ignore the meaning of what people are saying. Anything for a "win", eh?
No, it's simple:
Other genres legitimately have pay to win. The term is correctly used in those genres to refer to buying things that make winning easier.
Most MMORPGs don't have it. Yet the term is being incorrectly used to refer to things which aren't winning.
Why are players doing this? Because they're not willing to think. They heard a term used and just apply it to their own genre, whether or not it actually applies.
So this isn't "anything for a win". This is about actually being right.
I'm not ignoring what people mean. In fact I've continually advised people to say what they mean ("pay for advantage" or "pay for benefit".)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Those^ are not function of a game, are they. (troll much?)
Pay to win, is when you are paying the developer for an in-game advantage over other players. That constitutes a mini "win" in the eyes of the buyer, and of the person who can not afford to do so.
Anything, in which gives a character an advantage, over another is a win. When you pay for it, it becomes pay to win. What the advantage is, does not matter, because the player who didn't purchase it, doesn't have it. Thus the person who did purchase the advantage, has just gain a "I Win".
You do not win the game! You are paying to get ahead of another, thus winning the situation.
There is no actual win, because nobody has ever won a MMORPG. I never seen a developer give an award out to the winner of their game.
This is pure deflection. Rather than deal with the underlying truth of what's said (these activities don't involve skill so they're never considered winning) you pretend as though it matters whether they're in a game. It doesn't.
Win was defined before. The word has 4 meanings and each of those meanings involves skill.
In other genres, pay to win actually means pay to win. You purchase power directly in Clash of Clans; things which make your attacks easier (require less skill) and your defenses easier (requires less skill; requires more skill from your attackers.)
So just because MMORPG players are unfamiliar with the term (because it rarely exists in their genre) that doesn't mean they just get to re-define the definition of it.
Luckily the definition is almost completely literal, because it's about "winning". (It's not completely literal because it's about things that make winning easier, so you're not always literally paying to win.)
But the root of your misunderstanding of this common term from other genres is that things aren't called winning if they don't involve skill. Which is why you never say "I won" after a trip to the grocery store. You went there, you bought a steak, and the steak was delicious for dinner, but you never "won" anything.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To be fair, when one points that a "win" applies to competition, you also have to realize that everything can get turned into a competition.
This is true. Earning XP can be a competition. In most MMORPGs it is not a competition (and therefore no winning is involved.)
I remember when a new server was released on WOW, or any new game was released for that matter; it became a race to cap with plaudits rained upon the winner of said race. This was a "win" scenario. On a more general note, if you goal is to achieve cap in the shortest time, then earning XP can become a win scenario for individual players. Different strokes for different folks.
Obtuse much? You guys want to use the dictionary and ignore the meaning of what people are saying. Anything for a "win", eh?
No, it's simple:
Other genres legitimately have pay to win. The term is correctly used in those genres to refer to buying things that make winning easier.
Most MMORPGs don't have it. Yet the term is being incorrectly used to refer to things which aren't winning.
Why are players doing this? Because they're not willing to think. They heard a term used and just apply it to their own genre, whether or not it actually applies.
So this isn't "anything for a win". This is about actually being right.
I'm not ignoring what people mean. In fact I've continually advised people to say what they mean ("pay for advantage" or "pay for benefit".)
Dude you gotta let it go , you do understand that P2W , is just a phrase not meant in the literal sense .. It just a catch phrase that evolved from players not being happy with Cash shops and the items .. So the the derogatory phrase P2W was born .. Its meaning is not litteraly Win(ing) .. Its a fuggin phrase
For ex.. if i said "You suck" i dont literrally mean you suck like a fuggin hoover or a Thai hooker .. it just means i may be unhappy with your stance or opinion or actions etc...
I remember when a new server was released on WOW, or any new game was released for that matter; it became a race to cap with plaudits rained upon the winner of said race. This was a "win" scenario. On a more general note, if you goal is to achieve cap in the shortest time, then earning XP can become a win scenario for individual players. Different strokes for different folks.
There's no formalized "win" to that situation so it's not winning.
If the game formalized the XP race, there would be winning. The XP leaderboard someone mentioned earlier would qualify (if the game also sold XP potions.)
Otherwise any random player can decide anything is a competition in their mind, and the term becomes meaningless and we have stupid things happening like someone claiming they "won" when they bought groceries at a store because they have those groceries and someone else doesn't have them. But we'd laugh at such a person, as clearly the competition only exists in their mind and is meaningless.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I remember when a new server was released on WOW, or any new game was released for that matter; it became a race to cap with plaudits rained upon the winner of said race. This was a "win" scenario. On a more general note, if you goal is to achieve cap in the shortest time, then earning XP can become a win scenario for individual players. Different strokes for different folks.
There's no formalized "win" to that situation so it's not winning.
If the game formalized the XP race, there would be winning. The XP leaderboard someone mentioned earlier would qualify (if the game also sold XP potions.)
Otherwise any random player can decide anything is a competition in their mind, and the term becomes meaningless and we have stupid things happening like someone claiming they "won" when they bought groceries at a store because they have those groceries and someone else doesn't have them. But we'd laugh at such a person, as clearly the competition only exists in their mind and is meaningless.
"formalized win"? you just altered the definition so that you could "win".
Like I said earlier, "win" conditions in MMOs are mostly subjective. What you consider a "win" is probably different to what I consider a "win". Does it make this discussion pointless? Probably.
Dude you gotta let it go , you do understand that P2W , is just a phrase not meant in the literal sense .. It just a catch phrase that evolved from players not being happy with Cash shops and the items .. So the the derogatory phrase P2W was born .. Its meaning is not litteraly Win(ing) .. Its a fuggin phrase
For ex.. if i said "You suck" i dont literrally mean you suck like a fuggin hoover or a Thai hooker .. it just means i may be unhappy with your stance or opinion or actions etc...
I'm not taking things literally, I'm educating people on the root meaning of the phrase.
Literal "pay to win" would mean that if you pay, you win. No exceptions.
Actual "pay to win" means that paying makes winning easier. (And sometimes can guarantee a win.)
But at no point does the term refer to things which aren't winning. The term is "pay to win", so obviously it's referring to winning.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Dude you gotta let it go , you do understand that P2W , is just a phrase not meant in the literal sense .. It just a catch phrase that evolved from players not being happy with Cash shops and the items .. So the the derogatory phrase P2W was born .. Its meaning is not litteraly Win(ing) .. Its a fuggin phrase
For ex.. if i said "You suck" i dont literrally mean you suck like a fuggin hoover or a Thai hooker .. it just means i may be unhappy with your stance or opinion or actions etc...
I'm not taking things literally, I'm educating people on the root meaning of the phrase.
Literal "pay to win" would mean that if you pay, you win. No exceptions.
Actual "pay to win" means that paying makes winning easier. (And sometimes can guarantee a win.)
But at no point does the term refer to things which aren't winning. The term is "pay to win", so obviously it's referring to winning.
its just a phrase , like thousands of others , that use words in a non literral way .. You cant and wont change that ... You need to choose your fights better .. This isnt one of them ... people dont need anyone teaching the Literal/non-literal meaning of P2W its insulting to the community .. Any air breather that Can Understand Normal Thinking .. Knows exactly what P2W means and implies, in non-literal way , annyone else isnt worth the effort as they most likely are whispering sweet nothings into there drunk sisters ear at 8pm sat nite ..
And i will add that the Root meaning of the phrase , stems from the early cash shop games , where players were lashing out at the games (or the "Not there Game" )were introducing to the genre , it was a phrase stemmed from anger and displeasure with these things invading there beloved Genre.. It was a deragatory ,sarcastic dig .. that was meant to degrade and downplay the cash shops
Dude you gotta let it go , you do understand that P2W , is just a phrase not meant in the literal sense .. It just a catch phrase that evolved from players not being happy with Cash shops and the items .. So the the derogatory phrase P2W was born .. Its meaning is not litteraly Win(ing) .. Its a fuggin phrase
For ex.. if i said "You suck" i dont literrally mean you suck like a fuggin hoover or a Thai hooker .. it just means i may be unhappy with your stance or opinion or actions etc...
I'm not taking things literally, I'm educating people on the root meaning of the phrase.
Literal "pay to win" would mean that if you pay, you win. No exceptions.
Actual "pay to win" means that paying makes winning easier. (And sometimes can guarantee a win.)
But at no point does the term refer to things which aren't winning. The term is "pay to win", so obviously it's referring to winning.
I gotta say that sometimes you should invest less time in teaching and a little more in learning.
So P2W does not actually mean P2W? It now means 'Being disgruntled with a game that has a cashshop, no matter the actual content of said cashshop, as you can find fault with ANY of the items being sold purely on the merit of them being sold.'
Got it, all MMORPGs with a cashshop are P2W now, I am feeling old....
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
its just a phrase , like thousands of others , that use words in a non literral way .. You cant and wont change that ... You need to choose your fights better .. This isnt one of them ... people dont need anyone teaching the Literal/non-literal meaning of P2W its insulting to the community .. Any air breather that Can Understand Normal Thinking .. Knows exactly what P2W means and implies, in non-literal way , annyone else isnt worth the effort as they most likely are whispering sweet nothings into there drunk sisters ear at 8pm sat nite ..
And i will add that the Root meaning of the phrase , stems from the early cash shop games , where players were lashing out at the games (or the "Not there Game" )were introducing to the genre , it was a phrase stemmed from anger and displeasure with these things invading there beloved Genre.. It was a deragatory ,sarcastic dig .. that was meant to degrade and downplay the cash shops
You are replying to a post where I just pointed out the true meaning isn't completely literal. Why then are you implying that people taking things in a non-literal way matters?
If you feel insulted to learn that you didn't understand a term, that's on you. I'm not insulting anyone here. "Win" means something, and that meaning is an intrinsic part of "pay to win".
To use the term to apply to any transaction whatsoever is not just sloppy, it defeats the entire point of the phrase (because at that point you're not actually describing "pay to win", you're describing any purchase.)
The origins of the word certainly come from player frustration. But the origins are indisputably about winning, otherwise it wouldn't be called pay to win. I'm a little confused why this is even a discussion. It's blatantly obvious.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I gotta say that sometimes you should invest less time in teaching and a little more in learning.
This is true, of course.
However unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that my definition for "pay to win" is the most logical and only evidence-backed definition in the thread so far. So implying that I need to learn things doesn't change the fact that I'm right in this particular case.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"formalized win"? you just altered the definition so that you could "win".
Like I said earlier, "win" conditions in MMOs are mostly subjective. What you consider a "win" is probably different to what I consider a "win". Does it make this discussion pointless? Probably.
If you defeat a boss, you have won against that boss. If you defeat a player in PVP, you have won against that player.
What purpose is there to promoting a definition for a word which causes it to be functionally useless? If anything can subjectively be considered "winning" then the term "pay to win" applies to every single purchased thing, which means it doesn't distinguish the types of purchases a game offers at all, which means it's useles as a term.
Whereas my definition of the term is more logical, evidence-based, and has true value (it clearly distinguishes purchases which erode a game's gameplay vs. those which don't.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To be fair, when one points that a "win" applies to competition, you also have to realize that everything can get turned into a competition.
This is true. Earning XP can be a competition. In most MMORPGs it is not a competition (and therefore no winning is involved.)
Listen,
You do not understand the "I WIN!" moments in human nature. You are looking for a score, or some actual win, before you can accept an EXP boost is a "win".
That is because you are being literal, when the "win" we are discussing and talking about is not, it is a colloquialism. Slang!
Either English is not your native tongue, or your incredibly naive.
Also, per logic:
"can be" mans you accept the notion that something like an EXP boost can be an advantage. What is hilarious is, without reason and in your inability to concede the point, you throw a blatant qualifier into the mix. you go on to qualify that "in most MMORPGs.."
You are illogical and do not understand what a definition is. Or are simply being disruptive for the lulz.
We have had to endure your constant rebuttals, when you whole argument stems from the following premise: " In most MMORPGs..".
Understand, EXP boosts do not have to function as an advantage in all games, for it definition to be true. Because the definition doesn't only include EXP boosts. That is the understood part of the conversation and what a Definition is.
You can place 10,000 qualifier up there, but that is not how definitions work. Water is Water..
Comments
A win is competition. Not something you like. Not just something good. The slang term of "win" is not a win. Just like the slang term fail is not a fail.
A perceived win is not necessarily a win. A perceived advantage is not necessarily an advantage. A perceived offense is not necessarily an offense..
Perceptions are not necessarily reality.
People also often mistake not being able to understand something with not agreeing with something.
I mean take the incessant nature of many conversations held here. Forum PvP is itself a type of competition largely without reward, but driven pretty singularly by the notion that someone wants to "beat" another forum poster. Whether that is accompanied by delusions of knowledge, logic, or otherwise, it doesn't change that there is a rather fundamental drive to prove oneself over others in many cases.
Even cosmetics is used as a competitive piece, and that becomes more so as the games in question provide more customization or options on that end. Costume competitions, contests, and even impromptu "I look more badass than everyone around me!" is all a competitively driven concept in which players are trying to "win" by being the best dressed, more or less.
The XP over time thing is a much more contextual argument. There are games where it matters and there are games where it does not. The case being how it affects the rest of gameplay. That's not to do with whether or not one considers any given design good or bad, it just goes to say that they have different functions for a resource pool that players can utilize. Be that leaderboards, paying out xp to accrue special equipment, vastly more efficient gameplay leading to players skipping vast chunks of game content others have to muddle their way through, etc.
There is room to argue for individual cases that boosted XP gain is in fact a scenario where there are clear winners because it gives them a considerable advantage over others, and other instances where is't a moot point because XP only takes one to a fixed point and consequently there isn't an effective means to competitively rank players in the long term with it.
Getting hung up on the most semantic aspect of this isn't particularly informative or useful, honestly. And I can't say bickering single-mindedly for either side is particularly logical either.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
These days where leveling to max takes from less than 50 to a couple hundred hours, shaving a few hours of the that is irrelevant.
Probably you missed a bunch of content any way you level, so buying xp boosts might be a case of paying to lose.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
if not, why not? ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
And exp pots, while irritating, don't bother me as much because let's face it, when was the last time it took MONTHS to get to max lvl? How long does it take getting to cap in Archeage compare to getting BiS? Yeah. Exactly.
But on topic. P2W for me is a game where you can buy a PERMANENT advantage, something not obtainable through any other means that makes my character better then someone elses. Looks, storage space etc. Etc. Not P2W for me, they are convenience at best and people shouting P2W at games like PoE make me cringe, you are really desperate then, same goes for FF14, please?..
A lot of people confuse P2W with 'not everything is accessible in game,' there is no debating P2 Advance Faster, P2 Get More Convenience and the like, P2W however? No, not in a PVE enviroment. That said, I despise guaranteed enchantments on gear when in game your chances are about 0.1% with a chance of destroying said item. I call that P2 Frustrate So Much That You Spend Money, it is NOT P2W however, you still do not win anything.
2 cents, there you have em.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The issue arises in games like Archeage (which I am happily jumping into with the foray of the new server tonight
The difference is the measure of P2W, when does it become problematic? Can you literally just dump a ton of money into the game and get a massive power-up?
Games I'm playing or have played recently with very light P2W would be: Planetside 2, SW:TOR. In the former, everything still depends on player skill in the end. But you can still buy a ton more vehicle upgrades and weapons to give you more ways to handle a situation.
In TOR, you can't really buy anything that would massively boost your power. But you can still buy stuff from the cash shop and sell them on the auction house for in-game money.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
- Other genres legitimately have pay to win. The term is correctly used in those genres to refer to buying things that make winning easier.
- Most MMORPGs don't have it. Yet the term is being incorrectly used to refer to things which aren't winning.
Why are players doing this? Because they're not willing to think. They heard a term used and just apply it to their own genre, whether or not it actually applies.So this isn't "anything for a win". This is about actually being right.
I'm not ignoring what people mean. In fact I've continually advised people to say what they mean ("pay for advantage" or "pay for benefit".)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Win was defined before. The word has 4 meanings and each of those meanings involves skill.
In other genres, pay to win actually means pay to win. You purchase power directly in Clash of Clans; things which make your attacks easier (require less skill) and your defenses easier (requires less skill; requires more skill from your attackers.)
So just because MMORPG players are unfamiliar with the term (because it rarely exists in their genre) that doesn't mean they just get to re-define the definition of it.
Luckily the definition is almost completely literal, because it's about "winning". (It's not completely literal because it's about things that make winning easier, so you're not always literally paying to win.)
But the root of your misunderstanding of this common term from other genres is that things aren't called winning if they don't involve skill. Which is why you never say "I won" after a trip to the grocery store. You went there, you bought a steak, and the steak was delicious for dinner, but you never "won" anything.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For ex.. if i said "You suck" i dont literrally mean you suck like a fuggin hoover or a Thai hooker .. it just means i may be unhappy with your stance or opinion or actions etc...
If the game formalized the XP race, there would be winning. The XP leaderboard someone mentioned earlier would qualify (if the game also sold XP potions.)
Otherwise any random player can decide anything is a competition in their mind, and the term becomes meaningless and we have stupid things happening like someone claiming they "won" when they bought groceries at a store because they have those groceries and someone else doesn't have them. But we'd laugh at such a person, as clearly the competition only exists in their mind and is meaningless.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Like I said earlier, "win" conditions in MMOs are mostly subjective. What you consider a "win" is probably different to what I consider a "win". Does it make this discussion pointless? Probably.
I'm not taking things literally, I'm educating people on the root meaning of the phrase.
Literal "pay to win" would mean that if you pay, you win. No exceptions.
Actual "pay to win" means that paying makes winning easier. (And sometimes can guarantee a win.)
But at no point does the term refer to things which aren't winning. The term is "pay to win", so obviously it's referring to winning.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And i will add that the Root meaning of the phrase , stems from the early cash shop games , where players were lashing out at the games (or the "Not there Game" )were introducing to the genre , it was a phrase stemmed from anger and displeasure with these things invading there beloved Genre.. It was a deragatory ,sarcastic dig .. that was meant to degrade and downplay the cash shops
Got it, all MMORPGs with a cashshop are P2W now, I am feeling old....
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
If you feel insulted to learn that you didn't understand a term, that's on you. I'm not insulting anyone here. "Win" means something, and that meaning is an intrinsic part of "pay to win".
To use the term to apply to any transaction whatsoever is not just sloppy, it defeats the entire point of the phrase (because at that point you're not actually describing "pay to win", you're describing any purchase.)
The origins of the word certainly come from player frustration. But the origins are indisputably about winning, otherwise it wouldn't be called pay to win. I'm a little confused why this is even a discussion. It's blatantly obvious.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is true, of course.
However unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that my definition for "pay to win" is the most logical and only evidence-backed definition in the thread so far. So implying that I need to learn things doesn't change the fact that I'm right in this particular case.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you defeat a boss, you have won against that boss.
If you defeat a player in PVP, you have won against that player.
What purpose is there to promoting a definition for a word which causes it to be functionally useless? If anything can subjectively be considered "winning" then the term "pay to win" applies to every single purchased thing, which means it doesn't distinguish the types of purchases a game offers at all, which means it's useles as a term.
Whereas my definition of the term is more logical, evidence-based, and has true value (it clearly distinguishes purchases which erode a game's gameplay vs. those which don't.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Listen,
You do not understand the "I WIN!" moments in human nature. You are looking for a score, or some actual win, before you can accept an EXP boost is a "win".
That is because you are being literal, when the "win" we are discussing and talking about is not, it is a colloquialism. Slang!
Either English is not your native tongue, or your incredibly naive.
Also, per logic:
"can be" mans you accept the notion that something like an EXP boost can be an advantage. What is hilarious is, without reason and in your inability to concede the point, you throw a blatant qualifier into the mix. you go on to qualify that "in most MMORPGs.."
You are illogical and do not understand what a definition is. Or are simply being disruptive for the lulz.
We have had to endure your constant rebuttals, when you whole argument stems from the following premise: " In most MMORPGs..".
Understand, EXP boosts do not have to function as an advantage in all games, for it definition to be true. Because the definition doesn't only include EXP boosts. That is the understood part of the conversation and what a Definition is.
You can place 10,000 qualifier up there, but that is not how definitions work. Water is Water..