It has a cashshop that ONLY sells cosmetic stuff, looks ONLY. Try constructing a P2W argument out of that you zealots
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's already been done. As a social player, I only really care about cosmetics because it shows my status as a player to other players around me, so by selling cosmetic items through the store, it allows people to obtain status that I can't have without paying. So P2W
That response made me think of this song:
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
It has a cashshop that ONLY sells cosmetic stuff, looks ONLY. Try constructing a P2W argument out of that you zealots
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's already been done. As a social player, I only really care about cosmetics because it shows my status as a player to other players around me, so by selling cosmetic items through the store, it allows people to obtain status that I can't have without paying. So P2W
That response made me think of this song:
I'm not sure why it made you think of that, but I'm glad it did
That's really all I am looking for. I'm fine with you feeling like all F2P is P2W. I think it's harmful to the genre overall, because I feel like people who generalize like you are doing feel like by doing so it will bring subscriptions back. However, my opinion is that it will actually stifle subscription-based games, since the track record for sub games over the last couple years is horrible. So, instead, it trivializes the term, and we get games with more substantial P2W options in it.
My friend,
I do not have an agenda like some here, who are trying to skew things for personal gain. I am here because I truly enjoy role playing games and adventurous worlds and am looking towards retiring into a good long game that offers a challenge to me and my close-knit friends. Ages 27 to 64.
We all play heavy PvP games like Battlefield, EVE and most of my 300+ guild mates are taking a sabbatical on MMORPGs. Because none are worth our time, or money.
I do not think our (my) social network is different than other guilds, clans, members, reddits, etc. There are millions just like me. Just look at how many disgruntled WoW fans there are on here, chiming in all the time.. Look at how many disgruntled EQ fans there are on here. Look at how many people in their perspective communities who are fiending over a new living world to call home once again. That is important to all of us. To have something that is lasting.
Many people are latching on to anything new just to TRY it. (current market)
So understand, even if 1.3 million people get a wife of it of a game and try it out, in doing so those people makes these companies uber rich. This reaction in the market is exactly what they where hoping for. Money. While the actual Players stagnate in a shallow-thought-out-world, with no real or substantial game mechanics or play ability.
My metrics indicate in the U.S. alone there are 5M - 8M (& more) disgruntled MMORPG Gamers who are trying anything and everything, looking for a new home and world. These same people have dabbled in whatever suites their fancy, but nothing to sit down in.
The market is ravenous and greed is taking over the story telling. People are looking to graduate from EQ, or WoW and looking for something more. They keep finding less. These recent attempts are spiritless games, not whole, or inviting realms, like the past.
That is why I keep my mantra up, the Baby Bells are coming, in hopes of people (themselves) looking into the new true MMORPGs brewing.
IMO, it is time to bring back the MMORPG community here & keep the
focus on MMORPGs. I say let these non-paying young adults find another
forum to discuss their non-mmorpg habits.
It is understandable of coarse, there are 600 games listed, 2/3 are action
arcade, and/or non-mmorpg games. Because of this, many here have to suffer
threw incessant yammering of youth, who have no past knowledge or
experience. But these youth will probably be the biggest crack heads
over these new games coming. They just don't even know it yet.
But this community is getting disruptive by some posing as community. Look
at how many here date back to UO and EQ. The paid a sub back then, but they can't pay a sub now?
These same people facetiously claim some personal misgivings and that somehow 15 years later they can not afford $240/year, for the private game they have been wanting. All the while dismissing that 15 years ago they paid $180/year.
Logic dictates, that either these same individuals suffered major financial
troubles in the last 15 years, or want you to play their free game. It becomes laughable.
Getting back to your post,
I can not stress this enough, that it is NOT my "feelings" that all free to play games are considered pay to win. It is just that nearly all free-to-play games falls under the DEFINITION of pay to win. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Even though i do not like these particular styles of games, I do not harbor no ill fate towards them. Some will have you believe I am using my personal feeling, when trying
to define things. That is not litigation & is illogical, as I can
easily separate my want/desires in a logical debate & have remain unbiased. I still maintain an open discussion and have done so.
I am not generalizing when in discussion here. I am defining things,
because others are trying to skew definitions in hopes of disrupting
conversation and consensus. They are doing this because their revenues
are governed by whales and they want to keep the confusion alive. It
suites them, when things are not definable. A business model is a
business model. But the truth of the matter is "pay to win" status hurts
them, so many are trying to remove that term from discussion. Or attack
anyone who uses that term.
Those who are new to the community,
or confused about such things can be educated, those who debate will
find consensus if the engage in logical arguments. But those who are
disruptive not looking for consensus and trolling for lulz with be outed
by the community. I am here in force because I just recently suffered a
drunk driver hitting me, so I have time to suffer threw these shills
and put a spot light on them, while I am recovering.
I have only recently started to engage the public here, because I
witnessed a massive agenda by some types who are trying to dismiss the
metrics around FREE. Ideally trying obfuscate the truth and hide the
actual mechanics & underpinnings of cash shop and Item mall games.
And so they have an understanding of why they are free & what they
really offer.
It is my opinion, that the new slew of grass roots MMORPG's being developed (ie: Baby Bells) will absorb some 5 million embattled, disgruntled NA MMORPG players. Whom have been lurking & looking for a new home over the past 4 to 6 years. These games are worth our money. They all have a different take, but all offer fair play rules and business model. I expect one, or few to have near a $20/month subscription rate, while others $5.99.
Some games of these up-and-coming MMORPGs will have 180k solid and devoted subscribers while some others will have 300k strong for 3-5+ years. None of these developers are seeking millions of players & none will be king of the hill. These are worlds, not games.
Lastly, those who are trying to deny consensus & arguing me the most, won't accept the nature of the those games, OR they are trying to squelch open discussion, because revealing a game as pay to win means what? To them..
My metrics indicate in the U.S. alone there are 5M - 8M (& more) disgruntled MMORPG Gamers who are trying anything and everything, looking for a new home and world.
Citation needed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Since this thread has predictably degenerated into arguments about semantics and definitions (which may have been the OP's intent, I don't know), let me ask the following question. Can a game be completely devoid of elements that are open to being interpreted by anyone as P2W?
---------- Actually, I think there is a possible solution where none of the 'win', 'advantage' or 'P2W' definitions that have been used in this thread (and others) could be applied to a game. Imagine a game where the player could not purchase anything from the publisher -- no box price, no cash shop -- nothing to buy within the game, or even externally (extra character slots, character rename services, etc.) The entire business model only revolves around in-game advertising, like product placement in movies. The innocent Coca-cola can in the fridge, a Pizza Hut driver making a delivery, etc. The money the publisher makes comes from product placement, advertising goods and services, maybe even with regional variations in advertising, so that non-national products have the opportunity to advertise. Cheerwine bottles might appear in the well-stocked fridge in the Carolinas, with that regional brand being replaced by Moxie in New England, Verner's in Detroit, or Green River near Chicago. The game essentially becomes a business-to-business monetary exchange, with nothing being asked of the gamer. The publisher could capture marketing research data and sell that, with varying levels of anonymity protecting the identities of gamers.
The only thing the gamer has is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, minus whatever downtime the game might require for maintenance and upgrades. Then the only 'advantage' possible is how much of this available time the gamer chooses to devote to this game. That is the one advantage that I don't think can ever be truly taken away.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Since this thread has predictably degenerated into arguments about semantics and definitions (which may have been the OP's intent, I don't know), let me ask the following question. Can a game be completely devoid of elements that are open to being interpreted by anyone as P2W?
----------
Here's my answer from the other thread:
"What Ways Does Spending Real Money Give In-Game Character Advantages?"
ANYTHING is capable of giving an advantage. Whether it does or not depends on the areas of competition within the game.
NOTHING can be completely devoid of elements that are open to being interpreted by anyone as P2W because of both individual measures/emotions about equity and the nebulous nature of that rather useless term.
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
My metrics indicate in the U.S. alone there are 5M - 8M (& more) disgruntled MMORPG Gamers who are trying anything and everything, looking for a new home and world.
Since this thread has predictably degenerated into arguments about semantics and definitions (which may have been the OP's intent, I don't know), let me ask the following question. Can a game be completely devoid of elements that are open to being interpreted by anyone as P2W?
I believe that the answer is yes. The key is to break the direct connection between payment and goods/services. As long as you directly get something in return for payment, then someone will consider it P2W. However, if payment no longer had a direct return, this would go away.
There are lots of ways that this could be done. Lets say for example, that everytime a mob on a server spawned, it charged the server a little bit. Once the money ran out, no more spawns. People could pay into the server pool, but would not get anything directly, as all payments would go to the entire server. Sure, you could choose to only pay when you are grinding mobs, but spawns would occur server wide, allowing everyone to benefit from this, and not just the person paying.
The real issue (that people do not want to face) is that P2W isnt really an issue. It is an excuse. Monetization is part of commercial gaming, and can co-exist just fine. It is, by definition, P2W... but that is not an issue for most people. The problem occurs when someone decides that they are unhappy with some particular monetization (it is going to happen), and decides that it is not only bad for them, but bad for others. Rather than let the others decide for themselves, they choose to use terms such as P2W (in their personal opinion) to try to prevent others from enjoying the game. The real question is this. Why should anyone care if someone else thinks a game is P2W? Why cant they make up their own mind about what they like/dont like?
Since this thread has predictably degenerated into arguments about semantics and definitions (which may have been the OP's intent, I don't know), let me ask the following question. Can a game be completely devoid of elements that are open to being interpreted by anyone as P2W?
I believe that the answer is yes. The key is to break the direct connection between payment and goods/services. As long as you directly get something in return for payment, then someone will consider it P2W. However, if payment no longer had a direct return, this would go away.
There are lots of ways that this could be done. Lets say for example, that everytime a mob on a server spawned, it charged the server a little bit. Once the money ran out, no more spawns. People could pay into the server pool, but would not get anything directly, as all payments would go to the entire server. Sure, you could choose to only pay when you are grinding mobs, but spawns would occur server wide, allowing everyone to benefit from this, and not just the person paying.
The real issue (that people do not want to face) is that P2W isnt really an issue. It is an excuse. Monetization is part of commercial gaming, and can co-exist just fine. It is, by definition, P2W... but that is not an issue for most people. The problem occurs when someone decides that they are unhappy with some particular monetization (it is going to happen), and decides that it is not only bad for them, but bad for others. Rather than let the others decide for themselves, they choose to use terms such as P2W (in their personal opinion) to try to prevent others from enjoying the game. The real question is this. Why should anyone care if someone else thinks a game is P2W? Why cant they make up their own mind about what they like/dont like?
I agree with every bit of your response except the first sentence, but maybe I misunderstood the question. I think you're spot on as to how to address (or ignore) certain issues with selling a game's products and services. However, I believe the answer to his question is No, because someone somewhere will always find some aspect unfair, no matter how much equity is designed into the system.
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
That's really all I am looking for. I'm fine with you feeling like all F2P is P2W. I think it's harmful to the genre overall, because I feel like people who generalize like you are doing feel like by doing so it will bring subscriptions back. However, my opinion is that it will actually stifle subscription-based games, since the track record for sub games over the last couple years is horrible. So, instead, it trivializes the term, and we get games with more substantial P2W options in it.
My friend,
I do not have an agenda like some here, who are trying to skew things for personal gain. I am here because I truly enjoy role playing games and adventurous worlds and am looking towards retiring into a good long game that offers a challenge to me and my close-knit friends. Ages 27 to 64.
We all play heavy PvP games like Battlefield, EVE and most of my 300+ guild mates are taking a sabbatical on MMORPGs. Because none are worth our time, or money.
I do not think our (my) social network is different than other guilds, clans, members, reddits, etc. There are millions just like me. Just look at how many disgruntled WoW fans there are on here, chiming in all the time.. Look at how many disgruntled EQ fans there are on here. Look at how many people in their perspective communities who are fiending over a new living world to call home once again. That is important to all of us. To have something that is lasting.
Many people are latching on to anything new just to TRY it. (current market)
So understand, even if 1.3 million people get a wife of it of a game and try it out, in doing so those people makes these companies uber rich. This reaction in the market is exactly what they where hoping for. Money. While the actual Players stagnate in a shallow-thought-out-world, with no real or substantial game mechanics or play ability.
My metrics indicate in the U.S. alone there are 5M - 8M (& more) disgruntled MMORPG Gamers who are trying anything and everything, looking for a new home and world. These same people have dabbled in whatever suites their fancy, but nothing to sit down in.
The market is ravenous and greed is taking over the story telling. People are looking to graduate from EQ, or WoW and looking for something more. They keep finding less. These recent attempts are spiritless games, not whole, or inviting realms, like the past.
That is why I keep my mantra up, the Baby Bells are coming, in hopes of people (themselves) looking into the new true MMORPGs brewing.
IMO, it is time to bring back the MMORPG community here & keep the
focus on MMORPGs. I say let these non-paying young adults find another
forum to discuss their non-mmorpg habits.
It is understandable of coarse, there are 600 games listed, 2/3 are action
arcade, and/or non-mmorpg games. Because of this, many here have to suffer
threw incessant yammering of youth, who have no past knowledge or
experience. But these youth will probably be the biggest crack heads
over these new games coming. They just don't even know it yet.
But this community is getting disruptive by some posing as community. Look
at how many here date back to UO and EQ. The paid a sub back then, but they can't pay a sub now?
These same people facetiously claim some personal misgivings and that somehow 15 years later they can not afford $240/year, for the private game they have been wanting. All the while dismissing that 15 years ago they paid $180/year.
Logic dictates, that either these same individuals suffered major financial
troubles in the last 15 years, or want you to play their free game. It becomes laughable.
Getting back to your post,
I can not stress this enough, that it is NOT my "feelings" that all free to play games are considered pay to win. It is just that nearly all free-to-play games falls under the DEFINITION of pay to win. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. .......
First of all, I think that the wide-spread disagreement around the definition of Pay-to-win means absolutely nothing is fact. Unless you'd like to get into a debate around the semantics of the word "fact" since I am using the dictionary definition of that word.
Secondly, I have never seen someone say so much shit in one post without having anything to actually back it up. Oh! Wait, I have. The OP has made similar, crazy, outlandish claims without any supporting evidence for quite some time now.
That's fine, though, I have no problems accepting that someone might have a different opinion than what I do. I've already said that it's fine for you to have your own opinion, but why not just say you hate cash shops instead of insinuating that everyone else must be an idiot because your way is clearly correct. There's nothing to support it (statistically or otherwise) but you can make up for that by calling everyone young and stupid, I suppose. Right?
Many Anti-P2W vs Denial of P2W debates have gone on in these as well as other forums. The question always comes up from team Denial of P2W, "What game are you playing? And is that the exception or the norm?" Let us reverse this question...
What Cash Shop MMO-MMORPG title are you playing that is not P2W?
Since this thread has predictably degenerated into arguments about semantics and definitions (which may have been the OP's intent, I don't know), let me ask the following question. Can a game be completely devoid of elements that are open to being interpreted by anyone as P2W?
I believe that the answer is yes. The key is to break the direct connection between payment and goods/services. As long as you directly get something in return for payment, then someone will consider it P2W. However, if payment no longer had a direct return, this would go away.
There are lots of ways that this could be done. Lets say for example, that everytime a mob on a server spawned, it charged the server a little bit. Once the money ran out, no more spawns. People could pay into the server pool, but would not get anything directly, as all payments would go to the entire server. Sure, you could choose to only pay when you are grinding mobs, but spawns would occur server wide, allowing everyone to benefit from this, and not just the person paying.
The real issue (that people do not want to face) is that P2W isnt really an issue. It is an excuse. Monetization is part of commercial gaming, and can co-exist just fine. It is, by definition, P2W... but that is not an issue for most people. The problem occurs when someone decides that they are unhappy with some particular monetization (it is going to happen), and decides that it is not only bad for them, but bad for others. Rather than let the others decide for themselves, they choose to use terms such as P2W (in their personal opinion) to try to prevent others from enjoying the game. The real question is this. Why should anyone care if someone else thinks a game is P2W? Why cant they make up their own mind about what they like/dont like?
Interesting idea, Supes, but I think it merely translates the complaint from 'Pay to Win (for me)' to 'Pay to Win (for someone)'. The standard Pay to Win complaint already includes an implied (to me) element. If the player is paying money, someone will claim that it is Pay to Win for them. Even as indirect benefit such as a chance at content spawning (pretty much functionally equivalent to a lock box key), is going to upset someone, and they will label the game as P2W, because their $5 didn't get a spawn in their location.
I agree that P2W isn't really an issue. Each individual playing decides for themselves if the game's monetization scheme provides more in-game benefits than they are comfortable paying. Trying to compare one player's personalized criteria against another player's does not generate a singular right or wrong situation. Everyone is right for their own situation, it really is a subjective expression. At best, such a comparison of opinions can hope to define a scale of elements that create the response 'P2W', but that has never seemed to be the intent of the OP, and this thread. The OP appears to want to impose a singular definition of 'P2W' on everyone else, possibly in some nonsensical effort to proclaim his game 'P2W'-free. That's only a guess.
The entire P2W debacle equates to 'A product is overpriced'. That is essentially the perceived value of that product. That is a subjective value, made by each individual and applicable only to them.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I think a lot of you should go back and read my first slew of posts here at MMORPG.
I
thought it was more than obvious that I am an insider. That I have
worked with several of the big MMORPG Developers and co-own a data collection firm
and I sell our metrics as a service, thru consulting. This is not news
here and I am sorry if some of you have lost sight of this.
My
studies & works are not just game related, I have worked for the big
three, airlines, gov and racing teams. I am a numbers
guy. I have the resources and have used my personal interest in MMORPG
to leverage and mine metadata in several ways in the MMORPG arena. About
13 years ago it was just an elaborate hobby, until business men
stepped in and needed guidance, so I made it a side business. I am under several different NDAs and non-compete clauses. But
will talk to anyone in private about work & consulting.
I
offered my services to Artiface if/when he decides to build his game. I
also gave him FREE advice that it seems he has now taken, and is
reformulating
his methods. A very insightful guy, but I think he has realized his own
bias and will come out more rounded after he meditates on fresh ideas. I
know his type, they want perfection, and he understands his flaws now.
His new concept (though may takes months) will be worthy of discussion, I am sure.
I am glad he has created these threads. I am a gamer and I do not need validation to have a discussion
On to thread.
One does not have to like "wine", to define or discuss "wine". You do not
have to have an opinion on p2w, to discuss it's definition. That is the
problem here, too many people are unable to stand by a definition. Even
if doing so defines themselves. That is the preeminent fear here on
these forums. That we can not have a discussion, because many are
fearful they will be defined. It really is adolescent behavior.
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It
doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger
certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will
see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
In part, it is because
they see it as labeling themselves. The mere fact that someone rages
over the term, means that SAME person has already defined THEMSELVES as
one, without others even implying or even implicating them. They simply see
themselves as who they are. (To themselves, Not to us).
So ask yourself, why do these players get angered, when someone brings up P2W? (Do you see?)
I'll
cut thru the chase and provide some precious study, it is because
to certain individuals it is a dismissive term. And the ego immediately takes
over, when someone belittles an others achievement.
When you can
"cap" on someone, or dismiss, belittle, discount the games someone
plays, or even what they have accomplished in those games. They get defensive and ego takes over, and starts to defends itself.
Socially needing to better to explain their situation, or themselves.
This is human nature, it is known behavior.
Definition of Pay to Win: Is the notion, that an
individual pays the developer, for an in-game advantage, over others.
There are two distinctive categories of "pay to win".
Character advantages (in-game)
Player advantages (out of game)
When most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean an: advantage to someone's Character in-game.
And
games that offer cosmetics only transaction, are often times are not
referenced as "pay to win", because they do not effect or give said Characters an in-game advantage. Even though other players may feel
jealous, or envious of another Player's Character, it ends up being an actual "win" over Someone's ego. Thus a win
for that Player, not his Character or abilities, or output. Technically, both are defined as pay to win though.
There are very few current games that do not fall within the pay to win definition. Subscription + Expansion only based games, are essentially the own types of games that technically do not fall within the moniker of "pay to win".
EQ itself, after 16 years is pay to win. There are only a hand-full of current games, that are not pay to win. Based in 100% in-game achievements.
IMO, that illustrates the sad state of affairs in the MMORPG market. The Baby Bells are coming.
I think a lot of you should go back and read my first slew of posts here at MMORPG.
I
thought it was more than obvious that I am an insider. That I have
worked with several of the big MMORPG Developers and co-own a data collection firm
and I sell our metrics as a service, thru consulting. This is not news
here and I am sorry if some of you have lost sight of this.
My
studies & works are not just game related, I have worked for the big
three, airlines, gov and racing teams. I am a numbers
guy. I have the resources and have used my personal interest in MMORPG
to leverage and mine metadata in several ways in the MMORPG arena. About
13 years ago it was just an elaborate hobby, until business men
stepped in and needed guidance, so I made it a side business. I am under several different NDAs and non-compete clauses. But
will talk to anyone in private about work & consulting.
I
offered my services to Artiface if/when he decides to build his game. I
also gave him FREE advice that it seems he has now taken, and is
reformulating
his methods. A very insightful guy, but I think he has realized his own
bias and will come out more rounded after he meditates on fresh ideas. I
know his type, they want perfection, and he understands his flaws now.
His new concept (though may takes months) will be worthy of discussion, I am sure.
I am glad he has created these threads. I am a gamer and I do not need validation to have a discussion
On to thread.
One does not have to like "wine", to define or discuss "wine". You do not
have to have an opinion on p2w, to discuss it's definition. That is the
problem here, too many people are unable to stand by a definition. Even
if doing so defines themselves. That is the preeminent fear here on
these forums. That we can not have a discussion, because many are
fearful they will be defined. It really is adolescent behavior.
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It
doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger
certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will
see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
In part, it is because
they see it as labeling themselves. The mere fact that someone rages
over the term, means that SAME person has already defined THEMSELVES as
one, without others even implying or even implicating them. They simply see
themselves as who they are. (To themselves, Not to us).
So ask yourself, why do these players get angered, when someone brings up P2W? (Do you see?)
I'll
cut thru the chase and provide some precious study, it is because
to certain individuals it is a dismissive term. And the ego immediately takes
over, when someone belittles an others achievement.
When you can
"cap" on someone, or dismiss, belittle, discount the games someone
plays, or even what they have accomplished in those games. They get defensive and ego takes over, and starts to defends itself.
Socially needing to better to explain their situation, or themselves.
This is human nature, it is known behavior.
Definition of Pay to Win: Is the notion, that an
individual pays the developer, for an in-game advantage, over others.
There are two distinctive categories of "pay to win".
Character advantages (in-game)
Player advantages (out of game)
When most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean an: advantage to someone's Character in-game.
And
games that offer cosmetics only transaction, are often times are not
referenced as "pay to win", because they do not effect or give said Characters an in-game advantage. Even though other players may feel
jealous, or envious of another Player's Character, it ends up being an actual "win" over Someone's ego. Thus a win
for that Player, not his Character or abilities, or output. Technically, both are defined as pay to win though.
There are very few current games that do not fall within the pay to win definition. Subscription + Expansion only based games, are essentially the own types of games that technically do not fall within the moniker of "pay to win".
EQ itself, after 16 years is pay to win. There are only a hand-full of current games, that are not pay to win. Based in 100% in-game achievements.
IMO, that illustrates the sad state of affairs in the MMORPG market. The Baby Bells are coming.
Wait... Artifice is a guy?
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
There are very few current games that do not fall within the pay to win definition. Subscription + Expansion only based games, are essentially the own types of games that technically do not fall within the moniker of "pay to win".
I can see how Subscription can get a pass, if that is the only way to play the game, (you cant have freemium along side it) but as soon as you add paid expansions you dont get at "not P2W" pass on it. Paid expansions are just as much pay to win as any other f2p gated content.
That said I DONT personally think gated content is p2w by definition, and all in all I am very liberal about what games can do without them being p2w, but with the very restrictive way you put it up, I dont see how you can give paid expansions a pass. That seems to only to make the argument fit your own preferences.
I think a lot of you should go back and read my first slew of posts here at MMORPG. I
thought it was more than obvious that I am an insider. That I have
worked with several of the big MMORPG Developers and co-own a data collection firm
and I sell our metrics as a service, thru consulting. This is not news
here and I am sorry if some of you have lost sight of this. My
studies & works are not just game related, I have worked for the big
three, airlines, gov and racing teams. I am a numbers
guy. I have the resources and have used my personal interest in MMORPG
to leverage and mine metadata in several ways in the MMORPG arena. About
13 years ago it was just an elaborate hobby, until business men
stepped in and needed guidance, so I made it a side business. I am under several different NDAs and non-compete clauses. But
will talk to anyone in private about work & consulting. I
offered my services to Artiface if/when he decides to build his game. I
also gave him FREE advice that it seems he has now taken, and is
reformulating
his methods. A very insightful guy, but I think he has realized his own
bias and will come out more rounded after he meditates on fresh ideas. I
know his type, they want perfection, and he understands his flaws now.
His new concept (though may takes months) will be worthy of discussion, I am sure.
I am glad he has created these threads. I am a gamer and I do not need validation to have a discussion On to thread.
One does not have to like "wine", to define or discuss "wine". You do not
have to have an opinion on p2w, to discuss it's definition. That is the
problem here, too many people are unable to stand by a definition. Even
if doing so defines themselves. That is the preeminent fear here on
these forums. That we can not have a discussion, because many are
fearful they will be defined. It really is adolescent behavior.
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It
doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger
certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will
see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
In part, it is because
they see it as labeling themselves. The mere fact that someone rages
over the term, means that SAME person has already defined THEMSELVES as
one, without others even implying or even implicating them. They simply see
themselves as who they are. (To themselves, Not to us).
So ask yourself, why do these players get angered, when someone brings up P2W? (Do you see?) I'll
cut thru the chase and provide some precious study, it is because
to certain individuals it is a dismissive term. And the ego immediately takes
over, when someone belittles an others achievement.
When you can
"cap" on someone, or dismiss, belittle, discount the games someone
plays, or even what they have accomplished in those games. They get defensive and ego takes over, and starts to defends itself.
Socially needing to better to explain their situation, or themselves.
This is human nature, it is known behavior. Definition of Pay to Win: Is the notion, that an
individual pays the developer, for an in-game advantage, over others.
There are two distinctive categories of "pay to win".
Character advantages (in-game)
Player advantages (out of game
When most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean an: advantage to someone's Character in-game.
And
games that offer cosmetics only transaction, are often times are not
referenced as "pay to win", because they do not effect or give said Characters an in-game advantage. Even though other players may feel
jealous, or envious of another Player's Character, it ends up being an actual "win" over Someone's ego. Thus a win
for that Player, not his Character or abilities, or output. Technically, both are defined as pay to win though.
There are very few current games that do not fall within the pay to win definition. Subscription + Expansion only based games, are essentially the own types of games that technically do not fall within the moniker of "pay to win". EQ itself, after 16 years is pay to win. There are only a hand-full of current games, that are not pay to win. Based in 100% in-game achievements. IMO, that illustrates the sad state of affairs in the MMORPG market. The Baby Bells are coming.
There is P2W elements in most games, yes. But more than a few games take this too far. Some of them more or less forces you to both a subscription and to buy some stuff as well if you want to be able to compete with the other players.
Other games are more generous and keep the balance in check, and voting with my wallet I go for those games.
Complaining on forums don't really help here, if we want to get rid of the severe P2W model we just must stop playing those games, if enough do it then the devs and publishers have to listen or sink. But I have noticed that a lot of the people that complain a lot actually plays those games themselves and support the model with their money but not their words. It is of course too bad when a game is really good.
And you are right about EQ, together with EQ2 it is one of the worst offenders.
I think a lot of you should go back and read my first slew of posts here at MMORPG.
I
thought it was more than obvious that I am an insider. That I have
worked with several of the big MMORPG Developers and co-own a data collection firm
and I sell our metrics as a service, thru consulting. This is not news
here and I am sorry if some of you have lost sight of this.
My
studies & works are not just game related, I have worked for the big
three, airlines, gov and racing teams. I am a numbers
guy. I have the resources and have used my personal interest in MMORPG
to leverage and mine metadata in several ways in the MMORPG arena. About
13 years ago it was just an elaborate hobby, until business men
stepped in and needed guidance, so I made it a side business. I am under several different NDAs and non-compete clauses. But
will talk to anyone in private about work & consulting.
........
I call bullshit. You have NOT worked in the industry. The way you talk about developers and the distinct lack of knowledge about the plight of the MMORPG developer makes it quite obvious. I was in the industry both as a level designer and in business developer for a little while (for an indie developer) and you definitely do not show any sort of respect for what it takes to make these games and why some of these people would actually want to make money. You'd also be more enlightened about these definitions and, also, the viability of subscription-based models. I still keep an eye on industry publications and industry-related sites and the information available there is quite contradictory. Even go take a look through any presentation made at any game conference in the last 5 years on the topic and you'll find it contradicts what you're saying.
Definition of Pay to Win: Is the notion, that an
individual pays the developer, for an in-game advantage, over others.
There are two distinctive categories of "pay to win".
Character advantages (in-game)
Player advantages (out of game)
When most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean an: advantage to someone's Character in-game.
And
games that offer cosmetics only transaction, are often times are not
referenced as "pay to win", because they do not effect or give said Characters an in-game advantage. Even though other players may feel
jealous, or envious of another Player's Character, it ends up being an actual "win" over Someone's ego. Thus a win
for that Player, not his Character or abilities, or output. Technically, both are defined as pay to win though.
There is no fixed definition of p2w, and I actually think the definition Axehilt provided earlier in this or the similar thread is a lot more accurate and meaningful than yours.
However, even if we were to go by your definition of p2w, it does not mean that p2w games (by your definition) are bad, in fact it means that many "p2w" games are good and that "p2w" is actually not such a bad thing. That is partially why your definition is so meaningless.
Perhaps another reason why many people are disagreeing with you is that you use your metric of p2w to paint a black and white picture of games. You say games that are p2w are bad and all games that are not sub games are p2w. This flies in the face of our actual experience of playing games that are a lot of fun that are not sub based (and conversely games that are sub based but bad).
Also people are aware that there is in fact a sliding scale for monetization that is intrinsically linked to how a game is designed. A game like GW2 is p2w by your definition, but it has been designed in such a way that is provides the most level playing field of any mmo I have ever played, sub or not. Meanwhile there are games that let you take out your credit card to completely negate any skill based gameplay.
The real question is does the way a game is designed and monetizated adversely impact the enjoyment of the game and to what degree.
I would say in a game like GW2 the monetization and design actually enhance the enjoyment of the game, while a game like say Archage has some issues with this.
There are very few current games that do not fall within the pay to win definition. Subscription + Expansion only based games, are essentially the own types of games that technically do not fall within the moniker of "pay to win".
I can see how Subscription can get a pass, if that is the only way to play the game, (you cant have freemium along side it) but as soon as you add paid expansions you dont get at "not P2W" pass on it. Paid expansions are just as much pay to win as any other f2p gated content.
That said I DONT personally think gated content is p2w by definition, and all in all I am very liberal about what games can do without them being p2w, but with the very restrictive way you put it up, I dont see how you can give paid expansions a pass. That seems to only to make the argument fit your own preferences.
Neither subs, nor box sales get a pass. The method of sales is not relevant. What has to be taken into consideration is the experience of the player who pays (or pays more) and the experience of the player that doesnt pay (or pays less). Whenever there is a difference, it is Pay 2 Win (someone got something for money). It doesnt matter how it was purchased (retail, online etc). It doesnt matter how it was packaged (box, expansion, sub, etc). It doesnt matter what currency they paid in (dollars, rubles, etc). The only two qualifying issues are: a. money was exchanged (pay) b. it changed the experience for only one of them (win)
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It
doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger
certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will
see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
Having worked in the industry 15 years, ~6 of those alongside "numbers people", I've never known a single numbers person to fight so strongly for a definition they readily admit means nothing, and against a definition which clearly has superior meaning and actionability. Normally Analysts and PMs are the first to recognize the value in useful (actionable) definitions, and the first to dismiss useless ones.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It
doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger
certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will
see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
Having worked in the industry 15 years, ~6 of those alongside "numbers people", I've never known a single numbers person to fight so strongly for a definition they readily admit means nothing, and against a definition which clearly has superior meaning and actionability. Normally Analysts and PMs are the first to recognize the value in useful (actionable) definitions, and the first to dismiss useless ones.
And yet you've repeatedly denied that you worked in the industry for several years, in threads just like this one.
Threads where you and a couple of other well known names (one of whom has also admitted he worked in the industry) use the same tactics, creating straw man arguments centered around the meanings of terms just to derail any threat to your industry status quo that so many gamers are unhappy with.
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It
doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger
certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will
see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
Having worked in the industry 15 years, ~6 of those alongside "numbers people", I've never known a single numbers person to fight so strongly for a definition they readily admit means nothing, and against a definition which clearly has superior meaning and actionability. Normally Analysts and PMs are the first to recognize the value in useful (actionable) definitions, and the first to dismiss useless ones.
And yet you've repeatedly denied that you worked in the industry for several years, in threads just like this one.
Threads where you and a couple of other well known names (one of whom has also admitted he worked in the industry) use the same tactics, creating straw man arguments centered around the meanings of terms just to derail any threat to your industry status quo that so many gamers are unhappy with.
What are you going on about? Axe has always said he works in the industry. I would suggest you look up "straw man argument" to better familiarize yourself with the term, but you have made it clear you feel dictionary definitions are for people with an agenda... or something.
On P2W, you have certainly beenan ever fixed mark:
"Any RMT at all is Pay-To-Win. ... No matter how you look at it, cash buys something (items, advantages, or time rquirements to get). And that is Pay-To-Win." - Amaranthar
And if anyone tries to logically lay it out for you, you pshaw it away as straw men just as you have done here when someone tries summoning that Tome of Dark Voodoo and Cryptic Symbols. What was it called? Oh yeah... the dictionary.
And now you've taken the extra step of crawling into Fractal and Artifice's cozy conspiracy theory hut, contending that anyone that tries to present any level of fact or data contrary to what you want to believe is someone with an insidious corporate agenda, telling lies to brainwash the masses.
If nothing else, it's amusing at this point.
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
Comments
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
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
----------------
My friend,
I do not have an agenda like some here, who are trying to skew things for personal gain. I am here because I truly enjoy role playing games and adventurous worlds and am looking towards retiring into a good long game that offers a challenge to me and my close-knit friends. Ages 27 to 64.
We all play heavy PvP games like Battlefield, EVE and most of my 300+ guild mates are taking a sabbatical on MMORPGs. Because none are worth our time, or money.
I do not think our (my) social network is different than other guilds, clans, members, reddits, etc. There are millions just like me. Just look at how many disgruntled WoW fans there are on here, chiming in all the time.. Look at how many disgruntled EQ fans there are on here. Look at how many people in their perspective communities who are fiending over a new living world to call home once again. That is important to all of us. To have something that is lasting.
Many people are latching on to anything new just to TRY it. (current market)
So understand, even if 1.3 million people get a wife of it of a game and try it out, in doing so those people makes these companies uber rich. This reaction in the market is exactly what they where hoping for. Money. While the actual Players stagnate in a shallow-thought-out-world, with no real or substantial game mechanics or play ability.
My metrics indicate in the U.S. alone there are 5M - 8M (& more) disgruntled MMORPG Gamers who are trying anything and everything, looking for a new home and world. These same people have dabbled in whatever suites their fancy, but nothing to sit down in.
The market is ravenous and greed is taking over the story telling. People are looking to graduate from EQ, or WoW and looking for something more. They keep finding less. These recent attempts are spiritless games, not whole, or inviting realms, like the past.
That is why I keep my mantra up, the Baby Bells are coming, in hopes of people (themselves) looking into the new true MMORPGs brewing.
IMO, it is time to bring back the MMORPG community here & keep the focus on MMORPGs. I say let these non-paying young adults find another forum to discuss their non-mmorpg habits.
It is understandable of coarse, there are 600 games listed, 2/3 are action arcade, and/or non-mmorpg games. Because of this, many here have to suffer threw incessant yammering of youth, who have no past knowledge or experience. But these youth will probably be the biggest crack heads over these new games coming. They just don't even know it yet.
But this community is getting disruptive by some posing as community. Look at how many here date back to UO and EQ. The paid a sub back then, but they can't pay a sub now?
These same people facetiously claim some personal misgivings and that somehow 15 years later they can not afford $240/year, for the private game they have been wanting. All the while dismissing that 15 years ago they paid $180/year.
Logic dictates, that either these same individuals suffered major financial troubles in the last 15 years, or want you to play their free game. It becomes laughable.
Getting back to your post,
I can not stress this enough, that it is NOT my "feelings" that all free to play games are considered pay to win. It is just that nearly all free-to-play games falls under the DEFINITION of pay to win. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Even though i do not like these particular styles of games, I do not harbor no ill fate towards them. Some will have you believe I am using my personal feeling, when trying to define things. That is not litigation & is illogical, as I can easily separate my want/desires in a logical debate & have remain unbiased. I still maintain an open discussion and have done so.
I am not generalizing when in discussion here. I am defining things, because others are trying to skew definitions in hopes of disrupting conversation and consensus. They are doing this because their revenues are governed by whales and they want to keep the confusion alive. It suites them, when things are not definable. A business model is a business model. But the truth of the matter is "pay to win" status hurts them, so many are trying to remove that term from discussion. Or attack anyone who uses that term.
Those who are new to the community, or confused about such things can be educated, those who debate will find consensus if the engage in logical arguments. But those who are disruptive not looking for consensus and trolling for lulz with be outed by the community. I am here in force because I just recently suffered a drunk driver hitting me, so I have time to suffer threw these shills and put a spot light on them, while I am recovering.
I have only recently started to engage the public here, because I witnessed a massive agenda by some types who are trying to dismiss the metrics around FREE. Ideally trying obfuscate the truth and hide the actual mechanics & underpinnings of cash shop and Item mall games. And so they have an understanding of why they are free & what they really offer.
It is my opinion, that the new slew of grass roots MMORPG's being developed (ie: Baby Bells) will absorb some 5 million embattled, disgruntled NA MMORPG players. Whom have been lurking & looking for a new home over the past 4 to 6 years. These games are worth our money. They all have a different take, but all offer fair play rules and business model. I expect one, or few to have near a $20/month subscription rate, while others $5.99.
Some games of these up-and-coming MMORPGs will have 180k solid and devoted subscribers while some others will have 300k strong for 3-5+ years. None of these developers are seeking millions of players & none will be king of the hill. These are worlds, not games.
Lastly, those who are trying to deny consensus & arguing me the most, won't accept the nature of the those games, OR they are trying to squelch open discussion, because revealing a game as pay to win means what? To them..
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
----------
Actually, I think there is a possible solution where none of the 'win', 'advantage' or 'P2W' definitions that have been used in this thread (and others) could be applied to a game. Imagine a game where the player could not purchase anything from the publisher -- no box price, no cash shop -- nothing to buy within the game, or even externally (extra character slots, character rename services, etc.) The entire business model only revolves around in-game advertising, like product placement in movies. The innocent Coca-cola can in the fridge, a Pizza Hut driver making a delivery, etc. The money the publisher makes comes from product placement, advertising goods and services, maybe even with regional variations in advertising, so that non-national products have the opportunity to advertise. Cheerwine bottles might appear in the well-stocked fridge in the Carolinas, with that regional brand being replaced by Moxie in New England, Verner's in Detroit, or Green River near Chicago. The game essentially becomes a business-to-business monetary exchange, with nothing being asked of the gamer. The publisher could capture marketing research data and sell that, with varying levels of anonymity protecting the identities of gamers.
The only thing the gamer has is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, minus whatever downtime the game might require for maintenance and upgrades. Then the only 'advantage' possible is how much of this available time the gamer chooses to devote to this game. That is the one advantage that I don't think can ever be truly taken away.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
"What Ways Does Spending Real Money Give In-Game Character Advantages?"
ANYTHING is capable of giving an advantage. Whether it does or not depends on the areas of competition within the game.
NOTHING can be completely devoid of elements that are open to being interpreted by anyone as P2W because of both individual measures/emotions about equity and the nebulous nature of that rather useless term.
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
There are lots of ways that this could be done. Lets say for example, that everytime a mob on a server spawned, it charged the server a little bit. Once the money ran out, no more spawns. People could pay into the server pool, but would not get anything directly, as all payments would go to the entire server. Sure, you could choose to only pay when you are grinding mobs, but spawns would occur server wide, allowing everyone to benefit from this, and not just the person paying.
The real issue (that people do not want to face) is that P2W isnt really an issue. It is an excuse. Monetization is part of commercial gaming, and can co-exist just fine. It is, by definition, P2W... but that is not an issue for most people. The problem occurs when someone decides that they are unhappy with some particular monetization (it is going to happen), and decides that it is not only bad for them, but bad for others. Rather than let the others decide for themselves, they choose to use terms such as P2W (in their personal opinion) to try to prevent others from enjoying the game. The real question is this. Why should anyone care if someone else thinks a game is P2W? Why cant they make up their own mind about what they like/dont like?
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
First of all, I think that the wide-spread disagreement around the definition of Pay-to-win means absolutely nothing is fact. Unless you'd like to get into a debate around the semantics of the word "fact" since I am using the dictionary definition of that word.
Secondly, I have never seen someone say so much shit in one post without having anything to actually back it up. Oh! Wait, I have. The OP has made similar, crazy, outlandish claims without any supporting evidence for quite some time now.
That's fine, though, I have no problems accepting that someone might have a different opinion than what I do. I've already said that it's fine for you to have your own opinion, but why not just say you hate cash shops instead of insinuating that everyone else must be an idiot because your way is clearly correct. There's nothing to support it (statistically or otherwise) but you can make up for that by calling everyone young and stupid, I suppose. Right?
Cool bro. Have fun.
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
----------------
I agree that P2W isn't really an issue. Each individual playing decides for themselves if the game's monetization scheme provides more in-game benefits than they are comfortable paying. Trying to compare one player's personalized criteria against another player's does not generate a singular right or wrong situation. Everyone is right for their own situation, it really is a subjective expression. At best, such a comparison of opinions can hope to define a scale of elements that create the response 'P2W', but that has never seemed to be the intent of the OP, and this thread. The OP appears to want to impose a singular definition of 'P2W' on everyone else, possibly in some nonsensical effort to proclaim his game 'P2W'-free. That's only a guess.
The entire P2W debacle equates to 'A product is overpriced'. That is essentially the perceived value of that product. That is a subjective value, made by each individual and applicable only to them.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I self identify as a monkey.
I thought it was more than obvious that I am an insider. That I have worked with several of the big MMORPG Developers and co-own a data collection firm and I sell our metrics as a service, thru consulting. This is not news here and I am sorry if some of you have lost sight of this.
My studies & works are not just game related, I have worked for the big three, airlines, gov and racing teams. I am a numbers guy. I have the resources and have used my personal interest in MMORPG to leverage and mine metadata in several ways in the MMORPG arena. About 13 years ago it was just an elaborate hobby, until business men stepped in and needed guidance, so I made it a side business. I am under several different NDAs and non-compete clauses. But will talk to anyone in private about work & consulting.
I offered my services to Artiface if/when he decides to build his game. I also gave him FREE advice that it seems he has now taken, and is reformulating his methods. A very insightful guy, but I think he has realized his own bias and will come out more rounded after he meditates on fresh ideas. I know his type, they want perfection, and he understands his flaws now. His new concept (though may takes months) will be worthy of discussion, I am sure.
I am glad he has created these threads. I am a gamer and I do not need validation to have a discussion
On to thread.
One does not have to like "wine", to define or discuss "wine". You do not have to have an opinion on p2w, to discuss it's definition. That is the problem here, too many people are unable to stand by a definition. Even if doing so defines themselves. That is the preeminent fear here on these forums. That we can not have a discussion, because many are fearful they will be defined. It really is adolescent behavior.
Revealing a game is/has "pay to win", means what ?
It means nothing to me. It doesn't make me flinch one bit. By why does the term "Pay to Win" anger certain people here? Answer that truthfully to yourself and you will see why you (and others) are so hung up over a simple term.
In part, it is because they see it as labeling themselves. The mere fact that someone rages over the term, means that SAME person has already defined THEMSELVES as one, without others even implying or even implicating them. They simply see themselves as who they are. (To themselves, Not to us).
So ask yourself, why do these players get angered, when someone brings up P2W? (Do you see?)
I'll cut thru the chase and provide some precious study, it is because to certain individuals it is a dismissive term. And the ego immediately takes over, when someone belittles an others achievement.
When you can "cap" on someone, or dismiss, belittle, discount the games someone plays, or even what they have accomplished in those games. They get defensive and ego takes over, and starts to defends itself. Socially needing to better to explain their situation, or themselves. This is human nature, it is known behavior.
Definition of Pay to Win: Is the notion, that an individual pays the developer, for an in-game advantage, over others.
There are two distinctive categories of "pay to win".
When most people discuss "pay to win", they almost always mean an: advantage to someone's Character in-game.
And games that offer cosmetics only transaction, are often times are not referenced as "pay to win", because they do not effect or give said Characters an in-game advantage. Even though other players may feel jealous, or envious of another Player's Character, it ends up being an actual "win" over Someone's ego. Thus a win for that Player, not his Character or abilities, or output. Technically, both are defined as pay to win though.
There are very few current games that do not fall within the pay to win definition. Subscription + Expansion only based games, are essentially the own types of games that technically do not fall within the moniker of "pay to win".
EQ itself, after 16 years is pay to win. There are only a hand-full of current games, that are not pay to win. Based in 100% in-game achievements.
IMO, that illustrates the sad state of affairs in the MMORPG market.
The Baby Bells are coming.
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
That said I DONT personally think gated content is p2w by definition, and all in all I am very liberal about what games can do without them being p2w, but with the very restrictive way you put it up, I dont see how you can give paid expansions a pass. That seems to only to make the argument fit your own preferences.
Other games are more generous and keep the balance in check, and voting with my wallet I go for those games.
Complaining on forums don't really help here, if we want to get rid of the severe P2W model we just must stop playing those games, if enough do it then the devs and publishers have to listen or sink. But I have noticed that a lot of the people that complain a lot actually plays those games themselves and support the model with their money but not their words. It is of course too bad when a game is really good.
And you are right about EQ, together with EQ2 it is one of the worst offenders.
I call bullshit. You have NOT worked in the industry. The way you talk about developers and the distinct lack of knowledge about the plight of the MMORPG developer makes it quite obvious. I was in the industry both as a level designer and in business developer for a little while (for an indie developer) and you definitely do not show any sort of respect for what it takes to make these games and why some of these people would actually want to make money. You'd also be more enlightened about these definitions and, also, the viability of subscription-based models. I still keep an eye on industry publications and industry-related sites and the information available there is quite contradictory. Even go take a look through any presentation made at any game conference in the last 5 years on the topic and you'll find it contradicts what you're saying.
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
----------------
However, even if we were to go by your definition of p2w, it does not mean that p2w games (by your definition) are bad, in fact it means that many "p2w" games are good and that "p2w" is actually not such a bad thing. That is partially why your definition is so meaningless.
Perhaps another reason why many people are disagreeing with you is that you use your metric of p2w to paint a black and white picture of games. You say games that are p2w are bad and all games that are not sub games are p2w. This flies in the face of our actual experience of playing games that are a lot of fun that are not sub based (and conversely games that are sub based but bad).
Also people are aware that there is in fact a sliding scale for monetization that is intrinsically linked to how a game is designed. A game like GW2 is p2w by your definition, but it has been designed in such a way that is provides the most level playing field of any mmo I have ever played, sub or not. Meanwhile there are games that let you take out your credit card to completely negate any skill based gameplay.
The real question is does the way a game is designed and monetizated adversely impact the enjoyment of the game and to what degree.
I would say in a game like GW2 the monetization and design actually enhance the enjoyment of the game, while a game like say Archage has some issues with this.
a. money was exchanged (pay)
b. it changed the experience for only one of them (win)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Threads where you and a couple of other well known names (one of whom has also admitted he worked in the industry) use the same tactics, creating straw man arguments centered around the meanings of terms just to derail any threat to your industry status quo that so many gamers are unhappy with.
Once upon a time....
On P2W, you have certainly beenan ever fixed mark:
"Any RMT at all is Pay-To-Win. ... No matter how you look at it, cash buys something (items, advantages, or time rquirements to get). And that is Pay-To-Win." - Amaranthar
And if anyone tries to logically lay it out for you, you pshaw it away as straw men just as you have done here when someone tries summoning that Tome of Dark Voodoo and Cryptic Symbols. What was it called? Oh yeah... the dictionary.
And now you've taken the extra step of crawling into Fractal and Artifice's cozy conspiracy theory hut, contending that anyone that tries to present any level of fact or data contrary to what you want to believe is someone with an insidious corporate agenda, telling lies to brainwash the masses.
If nothing else, it's amusing at this point.
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