This makes time itself an advantage unique to MMO's, and much like a cash shop, it offers exclusive rewards.
In this way, I feel that the GW2 cash shop is actually MORE fair than a subscription.
Time is not an advantage. Everyone has the same amount to spend. 24hrs/day. That's it - everyone is the same. You can't "make" more time than anyone else. How you spend those 24hrs is up to you.
What's not up to you is to chose how valuable anyone else's time is. Judgments about the subjective quality of others' time spent are invalid.
Not everyone has the same amount of cash, by default, all the time. You can make more cash than someone else.
Cash is the variable advantage. Time is a constant
Again I'm playing the Devil's advocate:
To even out the advantage, you need to charge by time played.
That is how is used to be...in the Compuserve days...you were charged by the hour. If someone played 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, they would be more powerful than the player who would only play an hour a day.
The 'difference' was that those that played (8 hour/7days) a week actually spent more money and time to be more powerful.
Folks want equality and fairness to the extreme...well, the only way you get that is to pay for the time you play.
Is that what I want? No.
I like being able to buy a game and play as much or a little as my schedule allows, but it still gives the player that has more opportunity to play to get more value for his time than I get for mine.
Your point about 'not everyone has the same amount of cash' does not apply....even IF we all had the same amount of cash, some of us would use it to feed our family while others might use it to play the game.
It comes down to value...if some folks find value in the CS then they will use it, some won't find value there and won't use it.
Neither is right or wrong...it is a personal choice.
Say a sword takes, on average, 1 hrs to grind out or is $10 in the cash shop
Fred makes $10/hr, Jim makes $20/hr
If they both buy the sword, Fred pays 1 hour in time, Jim pays 1/2 hour in time.
If there isn't a cash shop, they both pay 1 hour in time.
What is most fair?
To take it a step further, since we're talking about a game, say Jim is slightly better at the game. Now Fred pays 1 hour and Jim pays 1/2 hour again.
In both cases, Jim pays less.
The question is, since we're playing a game, should Jim be rewarded in that game for his better real life job or better in-game skill?
All true. But to either pay more or have fewer slots in the bank isn't really that unfair.
I think at least many people here think that selling anything with stats in a cashshop is bad, be that in Wow, GW2 or LOTRO. But stuff that makes you more comfortable, look different or have more alts are not nearly as bad.
The real discussion here are about XP pots. Some like me think that even without the XP pots you level too fast and therefore have a hard time understanding why anyone would buy them. Others think that they are a kind of cheating.
And the people questioning your logic will state that Jim actually have a work and a family and therefore can play maximum 2 hours each day while while Fred are unemployed and play 8 hours avery day. That is unfair too.
I personally never liked RMT shops but every coin have 2 sides. As long as they don't f*** up the game balance they are a rather hard question. However when a game like Wow start to sell raid gear the balance is gone and many people would buy the gear, prance around in it 2 weeks and then quit out of boredom.
To even out the advantage, you need to charge by time played.
That is how is used to be...in the compushare days...you were charged by the hour. If someone played 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, they would be more powerful than the player who would only play an hour a day.
The 'difference' was that those that played (8 hour/7days) a week actually spent more money and time to be more powerful.
Folks want equality and fairness to the extreme...well, the only way you get that is to pay for the time you play.
Is that what I want? No.
I like being able to buy a game and play as much or a little as my schedule allows, but it still gives the player that has more opportunity to play to get more value for his time than I get for mine.
Your point about 'not everyone has the same amount of cash' does not apply....even IF we all had the same amount of cash, some of us would use it to feed our family while others might use it to play the game.
It comes down to value...if some folks find value in the CS then they will use it, some won't find value there and won't use it.
Neither is right or wrong...it is a personal choice.
There is another option: To stop the grind and let it be about how good you are instead of gear abd stats.
Even if you play 8 hours every day you still might not pass a hard dungeon if you play badly, while someone that is good can pass it the first go.
That is unfair to bad players, but the part of modern MMOs that really gets to me is the "everybody win" mentality that have sprung up.
This makes time itself an advantage unique to MMO's, and much like a cash shop, it offers exclusive rewards.
In this way, I feel that the GW2 cash shop is actually MORE fair than a subscription.
Time is not an advantage. Everyone has the same amount to spend. 24hrs/day. That's it - everyone is the same. You can't "make" more time than anyone else. How you spend those 24hrs is up to you.
What's not up to you is to chose how valuable anyone else's time is. Judgments about the subjective quality of others' time spent are invalid.
Not everyone has the same amount of cash, by default, all the time. You can make more cash than someone else.
Cash is the variable advantage. Time is a constant
Again I'm playing the Devil's advocate:
To even out the advantage, you need to charge by time played.
That is how is used to be...in the compushare days...you were charged by the hour. If someone played 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, they would be more powerful than the player who would only play an hour a day.
The 'difference' was that those that played (8 hour/7days) a week actually spent more money and time to be more powerful.
Folks want equality and fairness to the extreme...well, the only way you get that is to pay for the time you play.
Is that what I want? No.
I like being able to buy a game and play as much or a little as my schedule allows, but it still gives the player that has more opportunity to play to get more value for his time than I get for mine.
Your point about 'not everyone has the same amount of cash' does not apply....even IF we all had the same amount of cash, some of us would use it to feed our family while others might use it to play the game.
It comes down to value...if some folks find value in the CS then they will use it, some won't find value there and won't use it.
Neither is right or wrong...it is a personal choice.
There is no advantage to even out. You can shrink it down to pay by the minute or blow it up to pay by the year. We're talking about paying by the month. There is no difference in this context. Your argument uses the negative connotation of "pay by the hour" to appeal to emotion- it's a logical fallacy. A person could easily get pulled away from his game during an hour he paid for and not be able to spend the entire hour playing.
The point is that a cash shop allows people to translate their real life success into in-game success. A real life example which takes into account the "fluff only is ok" crowd would be for a non-veteran to go out and by a bunch of combat ribbons and then try to pass himself off as a real vet. Those ribbons are a sign of accomplishment. If they were available at Walmart, it would cheapen the value of what they represent in the same way that buying things with-in the context of a game world cheapens the in-game value of those items when they're earned. Maybe the guy doesn't intend to pass himself off as anything or doesn't feel that they represent any sort of accomplishment - it still cheapens the value.
To even out the advantage, you need to charge by time played.
That is how is used to be...in the compushare days...you were charged by the hour. If someone played 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, they would be more powerful than the player who would only play an hour a day.
The 'difference' was that those that played (8 hour/7days) a week actually spent more money and time to be more powerful.
Folks want equality and fairness to the extreme...well, the only way you get that is to pay for the time you play.
Is that what I want? No.
I like being able to buy a game and play as much or a little as my schedule allows, but it still gives the player that has more opportunity to play to get more value for his time than I get for mine.
Your point about 'not everyone has the same amount of cash' does not apply....even IF we all had the same amount of cash, some of us would use it to feed our family while others might use it to play the game.
It comes down to value...if some folks find value in the CS then they will use it, some won't find value there and won't use it.
Neither is right or wrong...it is a personal choice.
There is another option: To stop the grind and let it be about how good you are instead of gear abd stats.
Even if you play 8 hours every day you still might not pass a hard dungeon if you play badly, while someone that is good can pass it the first go.
That is unfair to bad players, but the part of modern MMOs that really gets to me is the "everybody win" mentality that have sprung up.
Say a sword takes, on average, 1 hrs to grind out or is $10 in the cash shop
Fred makes $10/hr, Jim makes $20/hr
If they both buy the sword, Fred pays 1 hour in time, Jim pays 1/2 hour in time.
If there isn't a cash shop, they both pay 1 hour in time.
What is most fair?
To take it a step further, since we're talking about a game, say Jim is slightly better at the game. Now Fred pays 1 hour and Jim pays 1/2 hour again.
In both cases, Jim pays less.
The question is, since we're playing a game, should Jim be rewarded in that game for his better real life job or better in-game skill?
And the people questioning your logic will state that Jim actually have a work and a family and therefore can play maximum 2 hours each day while while Fred are unemployed and play 8 hours avery day. That is unfair too.
That is completely wrong. This is a judgment call on the value of each player's time. Take the emotion out - say Jim is unemployed and doesn't have a family, but he likes to practice his guitar. So Jim practices guitar 6 hours, plays the game for 2 while Fred doesn't play guitar and plays the 8 hours. Who should be further ahead in the game? Should Jim be able to trade his guitar skill for an advantage in the game?
This makes time itself an advantage unique to MMO's, and much like a cash shop, it offers exclusive rewards.
In this way, I feel that the GW2 cash shop is actually MORE fair than a subscription.
Time is not an advantage. Everyone has the same amount to spend. 24hrs/day. That's it - everyone is the same. You can't "make" more time than anyone else. How you spend those 24hrs is up to you.
What's not up to you is to chose how valuable anyone else's time is. Judgments about the subjective quality of others' time spent are invalid.
Not everyone has the same amount of cash, by default, all the time. You can make more cash than someone else.
Cash is the variable advantage. Time is a constant
Again I'm playing the Devil's advocate:
To even out the advantage, you need to charge by time played.
That is how is used to be...in the compushare days...you were charged by the hour. If someone played 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, they would be more powerful than the player who would only play an hour a day.
The 'difference' was that those that played (8 hour/7days) a week actually spent more money and time to be more powerful.
Folks want equality and fairness to the extreme...well, the only way you get that is to pay for the time you play.
Is that what I want? No.
I like being able to buy a game and play as much or a little as my schedule allows, but it still gives the player that has more opportunity to play to get more value for his time than I get for mine.
Your point about 'not everyone has the same amount of cash' does not apply....even IF we all had the same amount of cash, some of us would use it to feed our family while others might use it to play the game.
It comes down to value...if some folks find value in the CS then they will use it, some won't find value there and won't use it.
Neither is right or wrong...it is a personal choice.
There is no advantage to even out. You can shrink it down to pay by the minute or blow it up to pay by the year. We're talking about paying by the month. There is no difference in this context. Your argument uses the negative connotation of "pay by the hour" to appeal to emotion- it's a logical fallacy. A person could easily get pulled away from his game during an hour he paid for and not be able to spend the entire hour playing.
The point is that a cash shop allows people to translate their real life success into in-game success. A real life example which takes into account the "fluff only is ok" crowd would be for a non-veteran to go out and by a bunch of combat ribbons and then try to pass himself off as a real vet. Those ribbons are a sign of accomplishment. If they were available at Walmart, it would cheapen the value of what they represent in the same way that buying things with-in the context of a game world cheapens the in-game value of those items when they're earned.
You can't buy accomplishment in the CS.
The cash shop does not allow people to translate their real life success into in-game success.
Each person that buys the game is successful enough to pay for the game to begin with. We all start out the same...the differences reveal themselves in time spent in game.
Time IS money. Any game that allows you unlimited playing time for 15$ a month is a real bargain. Those of us that used to pay by the hour don't want to go back to the 'good old days'.
If a cash shop offers 'cheats' that I can't earn in game, then I won't play it.
Say a sword takes, on average, 1 hrs to grind out or is $10 in the cash shop
Fred makes $10/hr, Jim makes $20/hr
If they both buy the sword, Fred pays 1 hour in time, Jim pays 1/2 hour in time.
If there isn't a cash shop, they both pay 1 hour in time.
What is most fair?
To take it a step further, since we're talking about a game, say Jim is slightly better at the game. Now Fred pays 1 hour and Jim pays 1/2 hour again.
In both cases, Jim pays less.
The question is, since we're playing a game, should Jim be rewarded in that game for his better real life job or better in-game skill?
And the people questioning your logic will state that Jim actually have a work and a family and therefore can play maximum 2 hours each day while while Fred are unemployed and play 8 hours avery day. That is unfair too.
That is completely wrong. This is a judgment call on the value of each player's time. Take the emotion out - say Jim is unemployed and doesn't have a family, but he likes to practice his guitar. So Jim practices guitar 6 hours, plays the game for 2 while Fred doesn't play guitar and plays the 8 hours. Who should be further ahead in the game? Should Jim be able to trade his guitar skill for an advantage in the game?
If Jim is unemployed, how did he afford the guitar?
Also, Fred only plays for two hours a day but he goes to an guitar instructor, pays for lessons and learns faster...so he plays better than Jim. Should Jim be upset that Fred is the better guitar player?
Honestly, I haven't followed Guild Wars 2 as closely as I should be. Basically, I read a headline that mentioned there would be a cash shop. I know I'm being lazy but what kind of items are being sold in the cash shop? Is it vanity only like Blizzard does with World of Warcraft or are we talking about actualy gear that could potentially change the game a bit?
No, think of it this way, say you want to go to a themepark. Every person has to pay an entree fee, some people can pay multiple days packages, others will only pay one day. However, once inside everyone has to make the same lines to get into the games. That's a subscription game. Pay to win would resemble you paying a fast pass ticket that gets you straight to the game without having to do the line. A free game would resemble a park where you don't have an entrance fee, but you can buy fast track passes for each individual game.
Now, this is a thought that occurred to me that amused me greatly. We have people hating on the cash shop, but isn't a subscription technically pay to win as well? Due to there being no skill involved in the vast majority of MMORPG releases, it all comes down to how much time you play for.
Let's say that I pay for one month out of four, I play, and I get some neat stuff. Let's say that you pay for all four moths and grind some really amazing shit. In PvP, let's say that gear decides things and the clear victory is yours. (This is the case in games like WoW.) Isn't that paying to win?
Again, just a thought exercise.
what you are talking about would be called -
P&P2W = pay and play to win.
how is this a thought exercise? seems obvious. a thought exercise is something that makes people think. this is just dumb...
This makes time itself an advantage unique to MMO's, and much like a cash shop, it offers exclusive rewards. In this way, I feel that the GW2 cash shop is actually MORE fair than a subscription.
Time is not an advantage. Everyone has the same amount to spend. 24hrs/day. That's it - everyone is the same. You can't "make" more time than anyone else. How you spend those 24hrs is up to you. What's not up to you is to chose how valuable anyone else's time is. Judgments about the subjective quality of others' time spent are invalid. Not everyone has the same amount of cash, by default, all the time. You can make more cash than someone else. Cash is the variable advantage. Time is a constant
I agree that time is a constant, and you cannot make more than 24 hours in a day. This is why I'd question the fairness of a game where the best rewards were only available to those who could invest an 8 hour block of time 4 days a week to prepare.
I simply don't have that time available, and I cannot create any more. I will not quit my job, or leave my wife, so these rewards are simply unavailable to me. As I've said, with the subscription model and gear treadmill, I'm simply "paying to lose".
At least with the cash shop model, every reward is available to everyone at some price. You can always earn more money, but you cannot create more time. If an iWIN item did become available in the cash shop and the price was out of reach for most players, I would question the fairness of that system too.
After some thought, My definition of P2W (And this is a general rule, I won't say absolute)
Is when you can break the isolation of the game.
Meaning we all start out in a world and from that starting point, we all have the same things at our disposal. Nothing more nothing less.
Everything we do with/to our characters happens from within the game only. And it has to be the same for everyone.
Once you beak that isoloation for anyone, you lose the integrety of equality.
I am not going to get into the argument here, as I wont spend my time badmouthing an unlaunched game in its own forum. This forum is for those intending to play IMO, so it is not my place to argue the topic here as I dont have a dog in this show.
That said, I really like your interpretation of the matter at hand. It is pretty clear and concise. +1 internets for you.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Now, this is a thought that occurred to me that amused me greatly. We have people hating on the cash shop, but isn't a subscription technically pay to win as well? Due to there being no skill involved in the vast majority of MMORPG releases, it all comes down to how much time you play for.
Let's say that I pay for one month out of four, I play, and I get some neat stuff. Let's say that you pay for all four moths and grind some really amazing shit. In PvP, let's say that gear decides things and the clear victory is yours. (This is the case in games like WoW.) Isn't that paying to win?
Again, just a thought exercise.
In order to play the game all need to "pay to play". There isn't alternative way to play the game.
But yeah, at the end players with more time do have advantage, and this advantage rise in time. The system itself is broken if you look that way.
However subscription in GW/GW2 wont ake that difference. There is no better gear.
This makes time itself an advantage unique to MMO's, and much like a cash shop, it offers exclusive rewards.
In this way, I feel that the GW2 cash shop is actually MORE fair than a subscription.
Time is not an advantage. Everyone has the same amount to spend. 24hrs/day. That's it - everyone is the same. You can't "make" more time than anyone else. How you spend those 24hrs is up to you.
What's not up to you is to chose how valuable anyone else's time is. Judgments about the subjective quality of others' time spent are invalid.
Not everyone has the same amount of cash, by default, all the time. You can make more cash than someone else.
Cash is the variable advantage. Time is a constant
I agree that time is a constant, and you cannot make more than 24 hours in a day. This is why I'd question the fairness of a game where the best rewards were only available to those who could invest an 8 hour block of time 4 days a week to prepare.
I simply don't have that time available, and I cannot create any more. I will not quit my job, or leave my wife, so these rewards are simply unavailable to me. As I've said, with the subscription model and gear treadmill, I'm simply "paying to lose".
At least with the cash shop model, every reward is available to everyone at some price. You can always earn more money, but you cannot create more time. If an iWIN item did become available in the cash shop and the price was out of reach for most players, I would question the fairness of that system too.
If I compete in a sport and have no time to train I will probably never win any competitions. I will certainly never compete in the olympics. But I dont think it gives me the right to buy gold medals. Or that it would be fair if I could pay money for advantages that helps me beat other competitors that train hard.
Playing computer games works the same way. A level playing field is important. Everything you have in the gameworld and your characters power must be earned in game. Because playing the game is the fun and what its all about. The rules when you play, when you are inside the virtual world, should be equal and the same for eveyone.
If I compete in a sport and have no time to train I will probably never win any competitions. I will certainly never compete in the olympics. But I dont think it gives me the right to buy gold medals. Or that it would be fair if I could pay money for advantages that helps me beat other competitors that train hard. Playing computer games works the same way. A level playing field is important. Everything you have in the gameworld and your characters power must be earned in game. Because playing the game is the fun and what its all about. The rules when you play, when you are inside the virtual world, should be equal and the same for eveyone.
This isn't a sport. It's a game. If you're talking GW2, and you want the competitive aspects you can play a level 80 just five minutes after you log in that is equal to everyone else. No cash shop required.
If you're talking PvE, how is it a competition? Are you implying an equivalency that should I trade gems to buy a flaming green sword, that is somehow like buying an olympic gold medal and claiming I won it? There is no equivalency there.
If I spend $1000 in the cash shop and by some miracle I'm allowed to purchase all the epic end game gear, but I didn't run a single dungeon, who cares? You'll know I'm fake. I'll know I'm fake. I didn't actually live any of those experiences. If you ran every dungeon legit, and beat every explorable mode available, who had more fun, you or me?
Edit: Not to mention there are probably titles of badassery for completing certain trials that simply cannot be bought. Also, sorry for off-topic.
This is interesting way things can happen and be poorly influenced by a subscription model. I have to disagree on the fact that it is as much p2w as f2p models. With a f2p model you have to cut, dilute and rearrange gaming systems to support the cash shop. W ith a subsciption game the entirety of the game and all its system can be focused on gameplay and not spliced up in order to increase cash shop sales.
Lucky for us gw2 seems to have strong gaming systems, having them slightly butchered in order to support a cash shop will likely not hurt the game. hopefully it will be worth the cost of no subscription. Also will even add a plus in the form of consistent population which is one of the downsides of subscription games.
Certainly not. I believe subsciption runs on secret techniques designed to take up your time. Using WoW heroics as an example, the goal of farming points is to get better gear. Why can't we just farm as many points as we want? Why is this hero suddenly unable to gain rewards? Why is there a limit? The answer is to take more of your time.
Why are there weekly raid lockouts? Why does the gryphon take so long? Why does my hearth have a 30 min cooldown? Why do town teleports have long cooldowns?
Subsciption pay-to-win is only prevalent in freemium models, where there is a mixed playerbase between paying and non paying players. I'll use Champions online as an example. A subscriber will almost always be more powerful than the free player. Trying to pvp against a freeform character using a pre-set build is like trying to climb a mountain while chained to several hungry bears.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
If I compete in a sport and have no time to train I will probably never win any competitions. I will certainly never compete in the olympics. But I dont think it gives me the right to buy gold medals. Or that it would be fair if I could pay money for advantages that helps me beat other competitors that train hard.
Playing computer games works the same way. A level playing field is important. Everything you have in the gameworld and your characters power must be earned in game. Because playing the game is the fun and what its all about. The rules when you play, when you are inside the virtual world, should be equal and the same for eveyone.
This isn't a sport. It's a game. If you're talking GW2, and you want the competitive aspects you can play a level 80 just five minutes after you log in that is equal to everyone else. No cash shop required.
If you're talking PvE, how is it a competition? Are you implying an equivalency that should I trade gems to buy a flaming green sword, that is somehow like buying an olympic gold medal and claiming I won it? There is no equivalency there.
If I spend $1000 in the cash shop and by some miracle I'm allowed to purchase all the epic end game gear, but I didn't run a single dungeon, who cares? You'll know I'm fake. I'll know I'm fake. I didn't actually live any of those experiences. If you ran every dungeon legit, and beat every explorable mode available, who had more fun, you or me?
Edit: Not to mention there are probably titles of badassery for completing certain trials that simply cannot be bought. Also, sorry for off-topic.
Almost anything can be a competition. It is subjective and depends on your goals. If my goal is to be the first max level player on the server it is a competition. My competition that I think is fun/interesting. If you buy xp potions and it helps you level faster than me it will ruin my gaming experience. I will think you are cheating. Its not a singleplayer game. Other players are important in an MMO. This means you can compare yourself to other players. If they are higher level, have better gear, better spells/talents and so on. All of that matters. And you could consider everything a competition. From my point of view buying anything in a cash shop that makes the character more powerful is exactly like cheating in a sport and pay money to get away with it. It could be faster progress, better items, stats...
Im not saying you have to think like that. Or that you or anyone should have the same goals that I have. But for me it really is like a sport. And character progress in general feels like a competition when I play MMO:s. Like if I am a runner and training hard to be faster than other runners...
High end gear in most MMO:s proves that you have defeated certain difficult enemys(raid bosses). Or that you are good at PvP. Or that you have done something difficult that is a challenge. If you can buy those items for real money it is also cheating. Very much like buying a olympic gold medal, IMO.
Now, this is a thought that occurred to me that amused me greatly. We have people hating on the cash shop, but isn't a subscription technically pay to win as well? Due to there being no skill involved in the vast majority of MMORPG releases, it all comes down to how much time you play for.
Let's say that I pay for one month out of four, I play, and I get some neat stuff. Let's say that you pay for all four moths and grind some really amazing shit. In PvP, let's say that gear decides things and the clear victory is yours. (This is the case in games like WoW.) Isn't that paying to win?
Again, just a thought exercise.
Yes more spend time = i win button is definitely the ban of the mmorpg too, and leaded to the GW2 design, definitely. A good pvp game just cannot have such gameplay funding, it just doesn't make much sense. If your pvp match are won around the time spend rather than your player skill, the fight make little sense to begin with, just look at your playing time against your opponent, and see who win.
When in some pvp game like lineage 2 where at higher level your character just dodge every single attack and one shot anyone 10 level lower than you, its clearly is an "i win button".
Now, this is a thought that occurred to me that amused me greatly. We have people hating on the cash shop, but isn't a subscription technically pay to win as well? Due to there being no skill involved in the vast majority of MMORPG releases, it all comes down to how much time you play for.
Let's say that I pay for one month out of four, I play, and I get some neat stuff. Let's say that you pay for all four moths and grind some really amazing shit. In PvP, let's say that gear decides things and the clear victory is yours. (This is the case in games like WoW.) Isn't that paying to win?
Again, just a thought exercise.
No.
You're paying to have access to the game, and everyone pays the same price to do so. Whether or not you get that super powerful equipment is up to whether you put forth the effort (not money) to get it. You can pay the sub and do nothing but chat with friends, or craft, or just explore the world.
Equipment isn't the only thing there is to MMOs. We can thank WoW for putting that misconception into the heads of gamers.
No. In a subscription model you're not paying for time to play. You're paying for access to the game. Its not pay-to-win, It's pay-to-play. The thing nice thing about a sub based game: Once you've paid your entrance fee, money should have nothing to do with how the game plays.
actually you are paying for time to play. When the sub ends your time is up. No more money? sorry wont play my game. I noticed people complain that GW2 has exp boost items, therefore thats p2w. Sub games have exp boost potions too (+ the sub) lol
No, you're paying for access to the game. You're not paying to play. If you don't pay, and you don't have access to the game, you're no longer competing with players who are in the game so you can't be said to be losing to their winning.
Have to disagree, it's typical projectionism. The model he has clung to has come under fire, and he's striking back. His comparison is completely arbitrary, as his calculated cause is not the actual culprit behind the effect. Any RPG (even single player) will reward time in such a way. GW2 will all the way to 80 as well.
I'm not targetting the OP I'm targetting the mesage he sent, there's a huge difference there.
You are attacking the poster, first you question his thought processes (projectionism), next his motives (agression). Your first argument is not an argument (arbitraty). Only your last statement can be considered as such.
Comments
Again I'm playing the Devil's advocate:
To even out the advantage, you need to charge by time played.
That is how is used to be...in the Compuserve days...you were charged by the hour. If someone played 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, they would be more powerful than the player who would only play an hour a day.
The 'difference' was that those that played (8 hour/7days) a week actually spent more money and time to be more powerful.
Folks want equality and fairness to the extreme...well, the only way you get that is to pay for the time you play.
Is that what I want? No.
I like being able to buy a game and play as much or a little as my schedule allows, but it still gives the player that has more opportunity to play to get more value for his time than I get for mine.
Your point about 'not everyone has the same amount of cash' does not apply....even IF we all had the same amount of cash, some of us would use it to feed our family while others might use it to play the game.
It comes down to value...if some folks find value in the CS then they will use it, some won't find value there and won't use it.
Neither is right or wrong...it is a personal choice.
edited for spelling
All true. But to either pay more or have fewer slots in the bank isn't really that unfair.
I think at least many people here think that selling anything with stats in a cashshop is bad, be that in Wow, GW2 or LOTRO. But stuff that makes you more comfortable, look different or have more alts are not nearly as bad.
The real discussion here are about XP pots. Some like me think that even without the XP pots you level too fast and therefore have a hard time understanding why anyone would buy them. Others think that they are a kind of cheating.
And the people questioning your logic will state that Jim actually have a work and a family and therefore can play maximum 2 hours each day while while Fred are unemployed and play 8 hours avery day. That is unfair too.
I personally never liked RMT shops but every coin have 2 sides. As long as they don't f*** up the game balance they are a rather hard question. However when a game like Wow start to sell raid gear the balance is gone and many people would buy the gear, prance around in it 2 weeks and then quit out of boredom.
There is another option: To stop the grind and let it be about how good you are instead of gear abd stats.
Even if you play 8 hours every day you still might not pass a hard dungeon if you play badly, while someone that is good can pass it the first go.
That is unfair to bad players, but the part of modern MMOs that really gets to me is the "everybody win" mentality that have sprung up.
There is no advantage to even out. You can shrink it down to pay by the minute or blow it up to pay by the year. We're talking about paying by the month. There is no difference in this context. Your argument uses the negative connotation of "pay by the hour" to appeal to emotion- it's a logical fallacy. A person could easily get pulled away from his game during an hour he paid for and not be able to spend the entire hour playing.
The point is that a cash shop allows people to translate their real life success into in-game success. A real life example which takes into account the "fluff only is ok" crowd would be for a non-veteran to go out and by a bunch of combat ribbons and then try to pass himself off as a real vet. Those ribbons are a sign of accomplishment. If they were available at Walmart, it would cheapen the value of what they represent in the same way that buying things with-in the context of a game world cheapens the in-game value of those items when they're earned. Maybe the guy doesn't intend to pass himself off as anything or doesn't feel that they represent any sort of accomplishment - it still cheapens the value.
I agree wholeheartedly.
That is completely wrong. This is a judgment call on the value of each player's time. Take the emotion out - say Jim is unemployed and doesn't have a family, but he likes to practice his guitar. So Jim practices guitar 6 hours, plays the game for 2 while Fred doesn't play guitar and plays the 8 hours. Who should be further ahead in the game? Should Jim be able to trade his guitar skill for an advantage in the game?
You can't buy accomplishment in the CS.
The cash shop does not allow people to translate their real life success into in-game success.
Each person that buys the game is successful enough to pay for the game to begin with. We all start out the same...the differences reveal themselves in time spent in game.
Time IS money. Any game that allows you unlimited playing time for 15$ a month is a real bargain. Those of us that used to pay by the hour don't want to go back to the 'good old days'.
If a cash shop offers 'cheats' that I can't earn in game, then I won't play it.
If Jim is unemployed, how did he afford the guitar?
Also, Fred only plays for two hours a day but he goes to an guitar instructor, pays for lessons and learns faster...so he plays better than Jim. Should Jim be upset that Fred is the better guitar player?
Yes, sub fee is just another form of pay2win.
MMORPG genre is dead. Long live MMOCS (Massively Multiplayer Online Cash Shop).
Thanks, I see now.
Honestly, I haven't followed Guild Wars 2 as closely as I should be. Basically, I read a headline that mentioned there would be a cash shop. I know I'm being lazy but what kind of items are being sold in the cash shop? Is it vanity only like Blizzard does with World of Warcraft or are we talking about actualy gear that could potentially change the game a bit?
No, think of it this way, say you want to go to a themepark. Every person has to pay an entree fee, some people can pay multiple days packages, others will only pay one day. However, once inside everyone has to make the same lines to get into the games. That's a subscription game. Pay to win would resemble you paying a fast pass ticket that gets you straight to the game without having to do the line. A free game would resemble a park where you don't have an entrance fee, but you can buy fast track passes for each individual game.
what you are talking about would be called -
P&P2W = pay and play to win.
how is this a thought exercise? seems obvious. a thought exercise is something that makes people think. this is just dumb...
I agree that time is a constant, and you cannot make more than 24 hours in a day. This is why I'd question the fairness of a game where the best rewards were only available to those who could invest an 8 hour block of time 4 days a week to prepare.
I simply don't have that time available, and I cannot create any more. I will not quit my job, or leave my wife, so these rewards are simply unavailable to me. As I've said, with the subscription model and gear treadmill, I'm simply "paying to lose".
At least with the cash shop model, every reward is available to everyone at some price. You can always earn more money, but you cannot create more time. If an iWIN item did become available in the cash shop and the price was out of reach for most players, I would question the fairness of that system too.
I am not going to get into the argument here, as I wont spend my time badmouthing an unlaunched game in its own forum. This forum is for those intending to play IMO, so it is not my place to argue the topic here as I dont have a dog in this show.
That said, I really like your interpretation of the matter at hand. It is pretty clear and concise. +1 internets for you.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
In order to play the game all need to "pay to play". There isn't alternative way to play the game.
But yeah, at the end players with more time do have advantage, and this advantage rise in time. The system itself is broken if you look that way.
However subscription in GW/GW2 wont ake that difference. There is no better gear.
If I compete in a sport and have no time to train I will probably never win any competitions. I will certainly never compete in the olympics. But I dont think it gives me the right to buy gold medals. Or that it would be fair if I could pay money for advantages that helps me beat other competitors that train hard.
Playing computer games works the same way. A level playing field is important. Everything you have in the gameworld and your characters power must be earned in game. Because playing the game is the fun and what its all about. The rules when you play, when you are inside the virtual world, should be equal and the same for eveyone.
This isn't a sport. It's a game. If you're talking GW2, and you want the competitive aspects you can play a level 80 just five minutes after you log in that is equal to everyone else. No cash shop required.
If you're talking PvE, how is it a competition? Are you implying an equivalency that should I trade gems to buy a flaming green sword, that is somehow like buying an olympic gold medal and claiming I won it? There is no equivalency there.
If I spend $1000 in the cash shop and by some miracle I'm allowed to purchase all the epic end game gear, but I didn't run a single dungeon, who cares? You'll know I'm fake. I'll know I'm fake. I didn't actually live any of those experiences. If you ran every dungeon legit, and beat every explorable mode available, who had more fun, you or me?
Edit: Not to mention there are probably titles of badassery for completing certain trials that simply cannot be bought. Also, sorry for off-topic.
This is interesting way things can happen and be poorly influenced by a subscription model. I have to disagree on the fact that it is as much p2w as f2p models. With a f2p model you have to cut, dilute and rearrange gaming systems to support the cash shop. W ith a subsciption game the entirety of the game and all its system can be focused on gameplay and not spliced up in order to increase cash shop sales.
Lucky for us gw2 seems to have strong gaming systems, having them slightly butchered in order to support a cash shop will likely not hurt the game. hopefully it will be worth the cost of no subscription. Also will even add a plus in the form of consistent population which is one of the downsides of subscription games.
Certainly not. I believe subsciption runs on secret techniques designed to take up your time. Using WoW heroics as an example, the goal of farming points is to get better gear. Why can't we just farm as many points as we want? Why is this hero suddenly unable to gain rewards? Why is there a limit? The answer is to take more of your time.
Why are there weekly raid lockouts? Why does the gryphon take so long? Why does my hearth have a 30 min cooldown? Why do town teleports have long cooldowns?
Subsciption pay-to-win is only prevalent in freemium models, where there is a mixed playerbase between paying and non paying players. I'll use Champions online as an example. A subscriber will almost always be more powerful than the free player. Trying to pvp against a freeform character using a pre-set build is like trying to climb a mountain while chained to several hungry bears.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
Almost anything can be a competition. It is subjective and depends on your goals. If my goal is to be the first max level player on the server it is a competition. My competition that I think is fun/interesting. If you buy xp potions and it helps you level faster than me it will ruin my gaming experience. I will think you are cheating. Its not a singleplayer game. Other players are important in an MMO. This means you can compare yourself to other players. If they are higher level, have better gear, better spells/talents and so on. All of that matters. And you could consider everything a competition. From my point of view buying anything in a cash shop that makes the character more powerful is exactly like cheating in a sport and pay money to get away with it. It could be faster progress, better items, stats...
Im not saying you have to think like that. Or that you or anyone should have the same goals that I have. But for me it really is like a sport. And character progress in general feels like a competition when I play MMO:s. Like if I am a runner and training hard to be faster than other runners...
High end gear in most MMO:s proves that you have defeated certain difficult enemys(raid bosses). Or that you are good at PvP. Or that you have done something difficult that is a challenge. If you can buy those items for real money it is also cheating. Very much like buying a olympic gold medal, IMO.
Whatever, people clearly have different opinion on what is P2W and what is not
For me it isn't P2W until Anet starts selling content and more powerful items in CS
(btw this is exactly what Expansion packs are about in P2P MMOs and I see noone complain - weird )
For others it's the selling of pink unicorn pet
For other others it's the selling of XP boosts
Im not defending cash shop, but I surely am glad there is one instead od P2P model
We can disuss here all day long
It's like trying to figure what the best political system is
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them
Yes more spend time = i win button is definitely the ban of the mmorpg too, and leaded to the GW2 design, definitely. A good pvp game just cannot have such gameplay funding, it just doesn't make much sense. If your pvp match are won around the time spend rather than your player skill, the fight make little sense to begin with, just look at your playing time against your opponent, and see who win.
When in some pvp game like lineage 2 where at higher level your character just dodge every single attack and one shot anyone 10 level lower than you, its clearly is an "i win button".
No.
You're paying to have access to the game, and everyone pays the same price to do so. Whether or not you get that super powerful equipment is up to whether you put forth the effort (not money) to get it. You can pay the sub and do nothing but chat with friends, or craft, or just explore the world.
Equipment isn't the only thing there is to MMOs. We can thank WoW for putting that misconception into the heads of gamers.
No, you're paying for access to the game. You're not paying to play. If you don't pay, and you don't have access to the game, you're no longer competing with players who are in the game so you can't be said to be losing to their winning.
You are attacking the poster, first you question his thought processes (projectionism), next his motives (agression). Your first argument is not an argument (arbitraty). Only your last statement can be considered as such.