FacelessSavior said:
First, if there is no PVP, or other form of competition between players, then I don't think there's a p2w aspect at all. Never understood why people care about other's buying items or levels in strictly PVE games.
I'm not so sure. Who gets picked for dungeon runs? Better geared players. Higher level players. If a player can buy his/her way to be more desirable then that's an issue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
For me pay to win = world pvp , significant boosts meaning armor,weapons or potions in the cash shop or selling things in the cash shop that give a significant advantage that cannot be achieved in game .
Anything that is PVE related that does not disbar people from entering dungeons or raids unless they pay for it is just cheating yourself of the feeling of achievement of advancing through a game .
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
FacelessSavior said:
First, if there is no PVP, or other form of competition between players, then I don't think there's a p2w aspect at all. Never understood why people care about other's buying items or levels in strictly PVE games.
You know what the problem is with having all these "personal definitions" of P2W? It becomes so easy for developers to sneak something right under your noses. All they have to do is come up with a concept you didn't think of.
When devs purposely create timesinks and power gaps with the purpose of getting players to buy from the cash shop (ie.every mobile game out there). And probably those asian f2p crap games, but I stopped playing them a decade ago. I imagine they are the same.
Become p2w if you have to catch up other players with money or time can be anything or any model is not only f2p. Is like if you have to spend 40 more hours just to win in a game a week just to keep up as it's no difference then someone paying money still getting ahead someone other. If you have to work and have a real life then no time to play a mmo 40 hours a week. People that do have the time don't work alot or don't work and even have alot money to spend on a silly game still will get ahead other people that don't.
GW2 pretty much closer thing of being not p2w in a way still is but not sure about it now with there expack. As befor you can pay for gear ingame but gear was not point of the game really as it had a cap didn't keep on getting new form of gear each time in a major update made people feel like they will never catch up. But people with less time to spend in a mmo end up catching up with 10 hours a week just to play. Then other games when gear become big factor and to get it is to spend more money or have alot alot free time so don't get hold back.
As time is cost money too when people can be doing other better thing then grind there time away.
FacelessSavior said:
First, if there is no PVP, or other form of competition between players, then I don't think there's a p2w aspect at all. Never understood why people care about other's buying items or levels in strictly PVE games.
Is there any MMORPG out there that has no economy and no pvp? Because the moment there is an economy or pvp, there is competition.
Anytime an item is sold via out of game money that gives a direct advantage to an in game scenario unless said item can be gained in game through normal play.
For example, selling a mount with 200% speed, but in game mounts only cap at 150% speed with no way to gain said mount.
What if the 200% mount inside the game takes a player on average 10 years to acquire, but can be bought with 5 dollars through the item mall?
Would you not consider that to be pay to win?
Stizzled said:
A game is P2W the moment that a player thinks they need to spend any amount of money in a F2P game, apparently. P2P games get a free pass to charge money.
Stizzled said:
A game is P2W the moment that a player thinks they need to spend any amount of money in a F2P game, apparently. P2P games get a free pass to charge money.
This. Just... this.
In the Free-to-Play game Path of Exile, there is only aspect that gives an advantage: buying extra bank space with real money. It is similar to P2P games that do not have item malls: you are required to pay a fee to compete on an even ground, but beyond that you can't pay even more to get a significant advantage.
Once you got 6 more bank tabs, the effect of having even more is very low.
There is a difference between pay to participate and pay to win.
P2W You pay money. You get an advantage that has an impact on the gameplay.
What impact? For example: increased xp gain, larger bank space, items, earlier mounts and so on.
Why? You compete with another player. You pay money. He doesn't. If you get some sort of advantage, you will win. You paid money to win. The game is P2W.
Examples for P2W games: Rift, GW2. Examples for games that are not P2W: DOTA2, Rocket League, Civilization 5
p2w loses its meaning by most of your estimates. The way so many define it, lines are blurred and every opportunity to spend rmt becomes p2w.
This is not correct. You are wrong. Knock it off.
There are games, primarily rts but a few ( read few ) rpgs venture into the territory, which are p2w. If you can not, by any measurable amount of time, progress to a point without paying extra money and be a competitor ( not against "best", but against "any" ) then the game is p2w.
Reserve this definition to real p2w, not your "work full time, no chance to catch up", not your "I don't have cerebral capacity otherwise", and stop throwing around the label to anything and everything. If you're really good at making semantics meaningless, you're not proving a point, but directing the conversation from its intent. You're making others less knowledgeable, less understanding, and you need to stop. ( read reddit )
I don't want to hear your babble about cash shops. I don't want to listen to your blather about x million hours. Your ill-informed opinion sucks. Ramble to your dog or the walls, but if you bring it here, people who know better know you're wrong.
It's a moot question, money always provides an advantage, but does it matter as far as your enjoyment of the game?
People bought items and accounts with money in UO and EQ1 back in 1998/99, this has been happening in every online game.
Did it affect your enjoyment of those games?
Can you have fun playing an aggressive cash shop mobile game?
The answers will vary from person to person, but the bottom line is that "p2w or not" is irrelevant for the masses.
I agree with all but last line, if "pay2win or not" did not matter to the masses then it would not be possible for a couple of loud mouth assholes on internet ruin trion's reputation in a matter of 2 months. As soon as western audience read "pay2win" they start judging without even experiencing the game. And western audience also utterly ignorant about "pay2win", look at how people think that having a cash shop mount that runs faster is pay2win. Of course i understand in western culture it is taught that "ignorance is bliss" and these arguments come from ignorance but it is pretty awful to read how ignorant western audiences are.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
If you can not, by any measurable amount of time, progress to a point without paying extra money and be a competitor ( not against "best", but against "any" ) then the game is p2w.
50 years is a measurable amount of time. Is it not p2w if the measurable time is 50 years?
If you can not, by any measurable amount of time, progress to a point without paying extra money and be a competitor ( not against "best", but against "any" ) then the game is p2w.
50 years is a measurable amount of time. Is it not p2w if the measurable time is 50 years?
50 years at one hour a month?
no. Your example is hyperbole. Hyperbole doesn't count for anything except comic books and whining to parents. Most of the world is not your parents.
If you can not, by any measurable amount of time, progress to a point without paying extra money and be a competitor ( not against "best", but against "any" ) then the game is p2w.
50 years is a measurable amount of time. Is it not p2w if the measurable time is 50 years?
50 years at one hour a month?
no. Your example is hyperbole. Hyperbole doesn't count for anything except comic books and whining to parents. Most of the world is not your parents.
Letting a parameter become large or small, tests how robust the definition is. If your definition fails, as in fails to align with your personal opinions, when a paremeter becomes large enough or small enough, then that's a flaw in the definition itself.
This sort of testing of definitions and models, is common in science.
If you can not, by any measurable amount of time, progress to a point without paying extra money and be a competitor ( not against "best", but against "any" ) then the game is p2w.
50 years is a measurable amount of time. Is it not p2w if the measurable time is 50 years?
50 years at one hour a month?
no. Your example is hyperbole. Hyperbole doesn't count for anything except comic books and whining to parents. Most of the world is not your parents.
Letting a parameter become large or small, tests how robust the definition is. If your definition fails, as in fails to align with your personal opinions, when a paremeter becomes large enough or small enough, then that's a flaw in the definition itself.
This sort of testing of definitions and models, is common in science.
But you're not doing this. You're hypothesizing and arguing "why am I not correct". You're so fond of "throwing down with science", great, I am too.
Give us your data of 100 individuals, good at gaming in general, 50 have benefit of 10x cash investment, 50 have less cash by 10x hour investment. I've done this, I live this in many games, the latter has measurable advantage just by virtue of "learning over time how to better manage and capitalize on resources".
People who just play the damn game most times feel it's virtually preposterous others spend real money. To wit, pay me your money, I will give your what you ask and then I will still beat you. Why? Why is this true? Do you know why?
It's a moot question, money always provides an advantage, but does it matter as far as your enjoyment of the game?
People bought items and accounts with money in UO and EQ1 back in 1998/99, this has been happening in every online game.
Did it affect your enjoyment of those games?
Yes. Once I've 'climbed the ladder' in UO, got more understanding of UOs economy, got into guild, etc and I've realized how prevalent and widespread RMT is - I did quit official UO cause it was complete opposite of what I've wanted.
Then I've played UO for a bit on a very harsh anti-RMT small private server which was heavily policed with anti-RMT and anti-bot measures, but generally realization of RMT/P2W was beggining of my end with UO and what started my hiatus with MMORPGs for several years (till WoW came).
I cannot stand and I don't play F2P mobile games either.
If you can not, by any measurable amount of time, progress to a point without paying extra money and be a competitor ( not against "best", but against "any" ) then the game is p2w.
50 years is a measurable amount of time. Is it not p2w if the measurable time is 50 years?
50 years at one hour a month?
no. Your example is hyperbole. Hyperbole doesn't count for anything except comic books and whining to parents. Most of the world is not your parents.
Letting a parameter become large or small, tests how robust the definition is. If your definition fails, as in fails to align with your personal opinions, when a paremeter becomes large enough or small enough, then that's a flaw in the definition itself.
This sort of testing of definitions and models, is common in science.
But you're not doing this. You're hypothesizing and arguing "why am I not correct". You're so fond of "throwing down with science", great, I am too.
Give us your data of 100 individuals, good at gaming in general, 50 have benefit of 10x cash investment, 50 have less cash by 10x hour investment. I've done this, I live this in many games, the latter has measurable advantage just by virtue of "learning over time how to better manage and capitalize on resources".
People who just play the damn game most times feel it's virtually preposterous others spend real money. To wit, pay me your money, I will give your what you ask and then I will still beat you. Why? Why is this true? Do you know why?
I haven't argued against that a game can designed in such way that a person that is good in gaming in general benefits more from 10 x time investment than in 10 x cash investment. My comment on that situation is that it depends on the design of the game: a game can be designed in such way that the former is far more beneficial than the latter and vice versa.
I've questioned whether or not your opinions actually align with your definition of "Pay to Win". That's why I let the time parameter be large and asked you if you still thought that definition is okay.
Edit: I am certainly suspecting that you are not ok with your definition once the time parameter becomes large and that's why I asked you.
Why does this even matter? Because a major topic in this thread is precisely about finding a "good" definition for "Pay to Win".
Look. Sit down with me in a game of Texas Hold-em ( presuming you're not a champion player ). Pay me 2 bucks every hand, blind 1 buck, I will put 2 kings in your hand. What do you think will happen after 1 hour of played hands, bid the rest under normal conditions? Will you win all my money? No, you will not. Why? Because even after 1 hour to my x hours you will not know how to play a good hand every time. You don't know how to better use what you're given. It's senseless.
Look. Sit down with me in a game of Texas Hold-em ( presuming you're not a champion player ). Pay me 2 bucks every hand, blind 1 buck, I will put 2 kings in your hand. What do you think will happen after 1 hour of played hands, bid the rest under normal conditions? Will you win all my money? No, you will not. Why? Because even after 1 hour to my x hours you will not know how to play a good hand every time. You don't know how to better use what you're given. It's senseless.
If that's a reply to my reply, then my reply to that is what I already wrote above:
"I haven't argued against that a game can designed in such way that a person that is good in gaming in general benefits more from 10 x time investment than in 10 x cash investment. My comment on that situation is that it depends on the design of the game: a game can be designed in such way that the former is far more beneficial than the latter and vice versa. "
Then it's not a "game" and no one is "playing it" in the first place.
A game in which a good gamer may benefit more from 10x cash investment than from 10x time investment can very well exist. If a person in FFXIV has put 200 hours into the game and another has put 2000 hours into the game and then SquareEnix decides to sell new gear that would take many years to achieve through ingame means in such way that a person paying 10 times more recieves a 5x damage multiplier and 5x defense multiplier in comparison, then that would still be a game.
I could believe that "no one" would play a such game if you define "no one" as "will at best only have a small population".
Edit: If you believe that any game where 10x cash investment is more beneficial than 10x time investement would not be economically sustainable, I can link to you a such game that I am actually playing right now roughly 1 hours per day and paying and explain why on average someone playing 10 hours per day and paying 10 times less would be significantly behind me. Even though every "extra" "power" I got, a person paying even nothing could achieve if he grinded for long enough time.
Comments
First, if there is no PVP, or other form of competition between players, then I don't think there's a p2w aspect at all. Never understood why people care about other's buying items or levels in strictly PVE games.
I'm not so sure. Who gets picked for dungeon runs? Better geared players. Higher level players. If a player can buy his/her way to be more desirable then that's an issue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Anything that is PVE related that does not disbar people from entering dungeons or raids unless they pay for it is just cheating yourself of the feeling of achievement of advancing through a game .
Some even go so far as to call subscriptions P2W.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
First, if there is no PVP, or other form of competition between players, then I don't think there's a p2w aspect at all. Never understood why people care about other's buying items or levels in strictly PVE games.
This.
It becomes so easy for developers to sneak something right under your noses. All they have to do is come up with a concept you didn't think of.
GW2 pretty much closer thing of being not p2w in a way still is but not sure about it now with there expack. As befor you can pay for gear ingame but gear was not point of the game really as it had a cap didn't keep on getting new form of gear each time in a major update made people feel like they will never catch up. But people with less time to spend in a mmo end up catching up with 10 hours a week just to play. Then other games when gear become big factor and to get it is to spend more money or have alot alot free time so don't get hold back.
As time is cost money too when people can be doing other better thing then grind there time away.
A game is P2W the moment that a player thinks they need to spend any amount of money in a F2P game, apparently. P2P games get a free pass to charge money.
This. Just... this.
The only way it is not P2W is if the stuff is only cosmetic
Once you got 6 more bank tabs, the effect of having even more is very low.
There is a difference between pay to participate and pay to win.
You pay money. You get an advantage that has an impact on the gameplay.
What impact? For example: increased xp gain, larger bank space, items, earlier mounts and so on.
Why? You compete with another player. You pay money. He doesn't. If you get some sort of advantage, you will win. You paid money to win. The game is P2W.
Examples for P2W games: Rift, GW2.
Examples for games that are not P2W: DOTA2, Rocket League, Civilization 5
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
This is not correct. You are wrong. Knock it off.
There are games, primarily rts but a few ( read few ) rpgs venture into the territory, which are p2w. If you can not, by any measurable amount of time, progress to a point without paying extra money and be a competitor ( not against "best", but against "any" ) then the game is p2w.
Reserve this definition to real p2w, not your "work full time, no chance to catch up", not your "I don't have cerebral capacity otherwise", and stop throwing around the label to anything and everything. If you're really good at making semantics meaningless, you're not proving a point, but directing the conversation from its intent. You're making others less knowledgeable, less understanding, and you need to stop. ( read reddit )
I don't want to hear your babble about cash shops. I don't want to listen to your blather about x million hours. Your ill-informed opinion sucks. Ramble to your dog or the walls, but if you bring it here, people who know better know you're wrong.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
no. Your example is hyperbole. Hyperbole doesn't count for anything except comic books and whining to parents. Most of the world is not your parents.
This sort of testing of definitions and models, is common in science.
Give us your data of 100 individuals, good at gaming in general, 50 have benefit of 10x cash investment, 50 have less cash by 10x hour investment. I've done this, I live this in many games, the latter has measurable advantage just by virtue of "learning over time how to better manage and capitalize on resources".
People who just play the damn game most times feel it's virtually preposterous others spend real money. To wit, pay me your money, I will give your what you ask and then I will still beat you. Why? Why is this true? Do you know why?
Then I've played UO for a bit on a very harsh anti-RMT small private server which was heavily policed with anti-RMT and anti-bot measures, but generally realization of RMT/P2W was beggining of my end with UO and what started my hiatus with MMORPGs for several years (till WoW came).
I cannot stand and I don't play F2P mobile games either.
I've questioned whether or not your opinions actually align with your definition of "Pay to Win". That's why I let the time parameter be large and asked you if you still thought that definition is okay.
Edit: I am certainly suspecting that you are not ok with your definition once the time parameter becomes large and that's why I asked you.
Why does this even matter? Because a major topic in this thread is precisely about finding a "good" definition for "Pay to Win".
"I haven't argued against that a game can designed in such way that a person that is good in gaming in general benefits more from 10 x time investment than in 10 x cash investment. My comment on that situation is that it depends on the design of the game: a game can be designed in such way that the former is far more beneficial than the latter and vice versa. "
I could believe that "no one" would play a such game if you define "no one" as "will at best only have a small population".
Edit: If you believe that any game where 10x cash investment is more beneficial than 10x time investement would not be economically sustainable, I can link to you a such game that I am actually playing right now roughly 1 hours per day and paying and explain why on average someone playing 10 hours per day and paying 10 times less would be significantly behind me. Even though every "extra" "power" I got, a person paying even nothing could achieve if he grinded for long enough time.