P2W, to me is anything that doesn't use the same business model as PoE.
If I'm looking to play F2P, it better be F2P, completely, like PoE, if it isn't I'm not touching it, I'm not wasting time on it.
Seeing all of these F2P games releasing makes me happy that I've spent 85% of my time gaming on WoW, I'll gladly pay a sub and buy xpacs if you can make and maintain a good game with lots of content, updates, with no advantages other than just playing.
When all is said and done, more is always said than done.
It is true that some people in the mmo community have "mangled" the meaning of p2w. You OP are a prime example.
If two people play a game for the same amount of time but one gets an advantage because they pay money then that is p2w. Even moreso, if like in AA, you get a greater advantage the more you pay.
Depending on how it is implemented this might not be such a big issue, but it becomes extremely dodgy business practice if the base game experience requires a sub, and the game has p2w elements on top of paying a sub- like in AA. In fact the facebook-game like paywalls in AA on top of demanding a sub is one of the saddest things I have seen brought to mainstream mmos.
Anyway, I would argue that there are also degrees of p2w, just as there are degrees of crime. For example, just because stealing is less destructive than murder does not mean that stealing is not a crime.
So the spate of p2w apologists that have come out of the woodwork on the back of AA's popularity would have us believe that an in game advantage purchased with cash is not p2w because there are games that have an even more extreme form of p2w (purchasing cash shop only powerful items)- something that as far as I know is not found in any AAA mmo.
So I ask you this- what is your problem with calling a spade a spade? Why can't you just say yeah its p2w, but it doesn't impact the game that much and even can help players with less time to play get through the game in a more enjoyable fashion (keep up with friends etc)? Do you want to see future games also level a sub on us and demand extra cash for in game advantages?
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
This is the best post in the thread. The implications are very interesting.
I looked up Pay To Win on Google and the most defined example was along the lines of what Loktofeit posted. Essentially you have to pay money in order to consume the content. World of Warcraft is P2W because you cannot consume content beyond level 20 without paying money. This particular definition would not have occurred to me, but in a PvE setting, having to pay for a piece of gear that gets you past a particular encounter and paying for the encounter itself to get gear result in the same thing. Content cannot be consumed without paying money.
I think there is a grey area in PvE content though, and it is a matter of degree. I played Requiem: Momento Moiri and it was kind of a neat game, but after a certain point you could continue playing, but your character just stopped making progress. If you did not pay money for XP potions, you would not progress, or you would progress so slowly that it was functionally the same as not progressing at all. New content was off limits. That, to me, seems to be P2W. I think the biggest issue with this grey area is that the mechanics exist to offset the game's lack of inherent value. It seems like a "trick" to get you into the game and to get you to pay money. I understand that development costs money, etc., but I would much rather spend money on a game from the start, getting a good value for my money than play a game for free, realizing it's not that great and then run up against a pay wall to continue playing.
I think it's a lot easier to have a definition for P2W with PvP content. If you don't pay money, you are at such a disadvantage against other players who have paid money that your chance of winning is zero or nearly zero. Same idea, but it's easier to see the Win portion of P2W with PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the better question is what do you consider an advantage.
To me xp potions are not an advantage. There will always be people faster more efficient or more hours than me so i can't consider anyone who is faster to have an advantage.
To me an advantage is when they can kill something or have an ability i don't it can't becauseodd what they bought ( at my particular level ).
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If I have a job/real life where I can get away with playing an MMO 4 hours each evening and then 15 to 20 hours on weekends, does that make me P2W over someone who only plays a total of 10 hours a week?
If I am in a big guild and we do activities together to make money and earn valuable loot, does that make me P2W over others who are not in big guilds?
Your entire post is summed up by the above nonsense. Your examples have nothing to do with "paying" for an advantage which is what PAY to win means.
Anything that gives an advantage that can be received from paying for it with real money = pay to win (no sub based games are not P2W because then ALL PLAYERS ARE PAYING and none are gaining an advantage)
Not just weapons or armor. not just something that gives a buff. its anything that gives an advantage over someone that does not pay for those things.
Free to play games started out with shops with nothing more than mundane items in them. Costumes with NO STATS, bag space increases, character slots and the like. Nothing that gave an advantage over another. No doubt someone is going to say that having more bag space is an advantage because they can get more loot and thus more gold because they for some reason feel the need to defend companies blindly, its BOGUS. .
Having 50 bag slots while someone else has 40 does not get me to end game faster, it doesn't help me travel faster, it doesn't help me kill another player easier and it doesn't allow me to make more crafting items.
YEARS later some F2P games started selling items with stat increases, mounts with stats, potions and that is when the P2W label came about. AA, and I PAY to play the Japanese version BTW, is a P2W game period. Paying gives double the LP and gives offline LP, a thing that is a MUST in the game and is needed for far too many things. It allows land ownership, a thing that is a MUST in the game if you really want to enjoy it. You can buy crafting components, LP potions, XP/honor/ vocation boosts.
Its an advantage being paid for and no, being able to earn these things by buying credits (in the American version) from other players does not negate this because guess what? PEOPLE ARE BUYING THOSE CREDITS WITH REAL MONEY AND TRADING IT FOR YOUR GOLD...for an advantage.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
This is the best post in the thread. The implications are very interesting.
I looked up Pay To Win on Google and the most defined example was along the lines of what Loktofeit posted. Essentially you have to pay money in order to consume the content. World of Warcraft is P2W because you cannot consume content beyond level 20 without paying money. This particular definition would not have occurred to me, but in a PvE setting, having to pay for a piece of gear that gets you past a particular encounter and paying for the encounter itself to get gear result in the same thing. Content cannot be consumed without paying money.
I think there is a grey area in PvE content though, and it is a matter of degree. I played Requiem: Momento Moiri and it was kind of a neat game, but after a certain point you could continue playing, but your character just stopped making progress. If you did not pay money for XP potions, you would not progress, or you would progress so slowly that it was functionally the same as not progressing at all. New content was off limits. That, to me, seems to be P2W. I think the biggest issue with this grey area is that the mechanics exist to offset the game's lack of inherent value. It seems like a "trick" to get you into the game and to get you to pay money. I understand that development costs money, etc., but I would much rather spend money on a game from the start, getting a good value for my money than play a game for free, realizing it's not that great and then run up against a pay wall to continue playing.
I think it's a lot easier to have a definition for P2W with PvP content. If you don't pay money, you are at such a disadvantage against other players who have paid money that your chance of winning is zero or nearly zero. Same idea, but it's easier to see the Win portion of P2W with PvP.
Like I said in a previous post, the term is just too subjective and situation to be useful. At some point every game designer, software developer, and person wants to be paid for their efforts. There is the odd hobby project, but unless we're looking at independently wealthy people, they still need income somehow.
So games need to make money. We need to fork over. The problem with P2W is that it tries to moralize the monetization and can mean any number of things as DamonVile said:
1. I want it all for a sub fee, or
2. I want it all free and never have to pay a dime.
Defining P2W subjectively doesn't go anywhere or solve anything. Say a game is "P2W", now what? Are you not supposed to play it now because it has violated gamer morality? What if you like the game and don't mind how much they charge? Does it matter now that it's pay to win?
Why not ask more practical questions like does the game deliver enough value for what they're asking? Do I like the game play and how I have to pay for it? Can I afford the game? Are they using revenue generating tactics in the game that appeal to greed, jealousy, and lust and, if so, am I going to tolerate that? Can it be avoided or disregarded? Since everyone has different preferences those questions can determine whether it's really appropriate to play and pay for a game as it applies to each of us.
Do people ever consider how much most mmos cost per year compared to most other games? To fully fund an mmo experience with a subscription, xpacs/dlc, and a cash shop can easily cost $250+ per year. Even without a cash shop it's $200+ per year (with an xpac). People cite that it's only 50 cents a day and that's cheap, but many other games with replayability and longevity are a lot cheaper. Do mmos offer real value with long term replayability or do they just offer the ability to repeat the same tasks over and over again like any other non-mmo game? Pay to win arguments answer none of those questions.
Nothing subjective about it, only people that try to defend the reasons for them to pay to progress would come out with a statement like that.
MMO's had very much real value before the whales came along and started demanding "let me buy [insert sales point here]" because they were either to dumb,/to lazy to play the game.
Subscription games are Pay-to-Play. OF COURSE THAT MEANS THAT, TECHNICALLY, IF YOU'RE INTO SEMANTIC NONSENSE, THEY ARE ALSO PAY-TO-WIN.
You can't win if you can't PLAY, after all.
This is why it's best to just ignore the idea of P2W when determining whether it includes subbing or not. Subbing (aka P2P. Pay-to-play) by default technically includes P2W because you need to be able to PLAY to win in the first place. Therefore, the term P2W has no meaning if you're just slapping it on a game just for being sub-based.
Bear in mind that the 20 level trial also is meaningless to this, because "Pay to continue" is basically the same as "Pay to Play, with a free temporary trial", and it's all SEMANTIC NONSENSE to argue otherwise, no matter how long the trial is. For example, most people consider Archeage to be sub-based (with the F2P option really just being a really really extended trial) and thus not what they are referring to when P2W arguments come up. (there is, of course, some subjectivity there. Many simply consider owning a house etc to be part of the "true" contents of archeage and that requires a sub)
Now, where the term P2W has MEANING for a sub game is if the sub game includes a sub AND a cash shop that provides advantages, especially in a competitive environment. Honestly I really shouldn't have to be bringing this up but as always people love to troll with meaningless technicalities.
Over in the Archeage section there is a thread about the game being pay-to-win. I am confused by how badly the MMO community has mangled the definition of P2W. Let me ask you a few questions:
**snip for length**
So what are your thoughts on P2W? What does P2W mean to you?
Well, on the one hand the term 'Pay to Win' or 'P2W' doesn't have an official meaning, as it's basically slang. However, what it used to unanimously be used for was to mean 'buying power'.
However, nowadays it's been bastardized to the point where it basically means 'paying for advantage' aka 'this game has a cash shop, F this game'. It's been so thoroughly misused that the phrase effectively has no meaning anymore. You can actually apply it to any online game ever made, by its current used definition.
Personally, I think the last MMO to get made that was actually P2W, was Allods. In that game you can use real money to buy materials to craft ridiculously powerful gear, with stats that were virtually impossible to get by normal players (and were significantly better for dungeon gear). I've been told that it evens out at max level, but the grind is a long one. And trying to pvp without those advantages means literally getting 1-2 shot by players who have them.
That, imho is pay 2 win. You are buying power. I don't agree with the current mentality that buying convenience, cosmetic items, play time, labor points, etc. is 'pay 2 win'. Do a lot of these games have bad F2P systems? Absolutely. But that doesn't automatically make them P2W. And we shouldn't forget that we've had games like GW2, & TERA which have had great F2P system, that absolutely do not grant power.
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
This is the best post in the thread. The implications are very interesting.
I looked up Pay To Win on Google and the most defined example was along the lines of what Loktofeit posted. Essentially you have to pay money in order to consume the content. World of Warcraft is P2W because you cannot consume content beyond level 20 without paying money. This particular definition would not have occurred to me, but in a PvE setting, having to pay for a piece of gear that gets you past a particular encounter and paying for the encounter itself to get gear result in the same thing. Content cannot be consumed without paying money.
I think there is a grey area in PvE content though, and it is a matter of degree. I played Requiem: Momento Moiri and it was kind of a neat game, but after a certain point you could continue playing, but your character just stopped making progress. If you did not pay money for XP potions, you would not progress, or you would progress so slowly that it was functionally the same as not progressing at all. New content was off limits. That, to me, seems to be P2W. I think the biggest issue with this grey area is that the mechanics exist to offset the game's lack of inherent value. It seems like a "trick" to get you into the game and to get you to pay money. I understand that development costs money, etc., but I would much rather spend money on a game from the start, getting a good value for my money than play a game for free, realizing it's not that great and then run up against a pay wall to continue playing.
I think it's a lot easier to have a definition for P2W with PvP content. If you don't pay money, you are at such a disadvantage against other players who have paid money that your chance of winning is zero or nearly zero. Same idea, but it's easier to see the Win portion of P2W with PvP.
Like I said in a previous post, the term is just too subjective and situation to be useful. At some point every game designer, software developer, and person wants to be paid for their efforts. There is the odd hobby project, but unless we're looking at independently wealthy people, they still need income somehow.
So games need to make money. We need to fork over. The problem with P2W is that it tries to moralize the monetization and can mean any number of things as DamonVile said:
1. I want it all for a sub fee, or
2. I want it all free and never have to pay a dime.
Defining P2W subjectively doesn't go anywhere or solve anything. Say a game is "P2W", now what? Are you not supposed to play it now because it has violated gamer morality? What if you like the game and don't mind how much they charge? Does it matter now that it's pay to win?
Why not ask more practical questions like does the game deliver enough value for what they're asking? Do I like the game play and how I have to pay for it? Can I afford the game? Are they using revenue generating tactics in the game that appeal to greed, jealousy, and lust and, if so, am I going to tolerate that? Can it be avoided or disregarded? Since everyone has different preferences those questions can determine whether it's really appropriate to play and pay for a game as it applies to each of us.
Do people ever consider how much most mmos cost per year compared to most other games? To fully fund an mmo experience with a subscription, xpacs/dlc, and a cash shop can easily cost $250+ per year. Even without a cash shop it's $200+ per year (with an xpac). People cite that it's only 50 cents a day and that's cheap, but many other games with replayability and longevity are a lot cheaper. Do mmos offer real value with long term replayability or do they just offer the ability to repeat the same tasks over and over again like any other non-mmo game? Pay to win arguments answer none of those questions.
Nothing subjective about it, only people that try to defend the reasons for them to pay to progress would come out with a statement like that.
MMO's had very much real value before the whales came along and started demanding "let me buy [insert sales point here]" because they were either to dumb,/to lazy to play the game.
Actually P2W is very subjective, people have all sorts of different ideas on it, hence this thread derp. The whales have been around since the inception of gaming, before cash shops there was Ebay. People have been spending ludicrous amount of money buying things in game since MUDs, hate to break your spirit.
The fact remains that some people just don't have the time to accomplish what they want or to be as competitive as they want so the spend a little to save the time. Some people just have that much money and they don't care about some fantasy ethical code that is supposed to deviate from being realistic. P2W, my i7-4980 + 2 x 980 GTXs vs your 10 year old piece of junk, my Aston Martin vs your pinto, my football team was able to spend 600 million more that your team and we stomped your asses in the superbowl, these are just a couple examples of the reality. Now why does that change with your made up fantasy code of ethics on what people can or can't buy. If the masses are really that up in arms about P2W then start some huge movement to cause gaming companies to change their monetization, because as long as they sell it, we will buy it.
All the P2W QQ makes for entertainment, like the pleb jester entertaining the court, for that we thank you.
Actually P2W is very subjective, people have all sorts of different ideas on it, hence this thread derp. The whales have been around since the inception of gaming, before cash shops there was Ebay. People have been spending ludicrous amount of money buying things in game since MUDs, hate to break your spirit.
P2W just describes the rule, or rule set that allows players to purchase advancement with real life money, and just like any rule to any game, players will judge it to be fair or unfair. It has nothing to do with whether or not P2W is an advantage, but whether that advantage is fair or unfair.
AA's labor potion changes before release simply proves the point that a P2W cash shop can be tolerated if the advantage isn't too unfair.
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
This is the best post in the thread. The implications are very interesting.
I looked up Pay To Win on Google and the most defined example was along the lines of what Loktofeit posted. Essentially you have to pay money in order to consume the content. World of Warcraft is P2W because you cannot consume content beyond level 20 without paying money. This particular definition would not have occurred to me, but in a PvE setting, having to pay for a piece of gear that gets you past a particular encounter and paying for the encounter itself to get gear result in the same thing. Content cannot be consumed without paying money.
I think there is a grey area in PvE content though, and it is a matter of degree. I played Requiem: Momento Moiri and it was kind of a neat game, but after a certain point you could continue playing, but your character just stopped making progress. If you did not pay money for XP potions, you would not progress, or you would progress so slowly that it was functionally the same as not progressing at all. New content was off limits. That, to me, seems to be P2W. I think the biggest issue with this grey area is that the mechanics exist to offset the game's lack of inherent value. It seems like a "trick" to get you into the game and to get you to pay money. I understand that development costs money, etc., but I would much rather spend money on a game from the start, getting a good value for my money than play a game for free, realizing it's not that great and then run up against a pay wall to continue playing.
I think it's a lot easier to have a definition for P2W with PvP content. If you don't pay money, you are at such a disadvantage against other players who have paid money that your chance of winning is zero or nearly zero. Same idea, but it's easier to see the Win portion of P2W with PvP.
Like I said in a previous post, the term is just too subjective and situation to be useful. At some point every game designer, software developer, and person wants to be paid for their efforts. There is the odd hobby project, but unless we're looking at independently wealthy people, they still need income somehow.
So games need to make money. We need to fork over. The problem with P2W is that it tries to moralize the monetization and can mean any number of things as DamonVile said:
1. I want it all for a sub fee, or
2. I want it all free and never have to pay a dime.
Defining P2W subjectively doesn't go anywhere or solve anything. Say a game is "P2W", now what? Are you not supposed to play it now because it has violated gamer morality? What if you like the game and don't mind how much they charge? Does it matter now that it's pay to win?
Why not ask more practical questions like does the game deliver enough value for what they're asking? Do I like the game play and how I have to pay for it? Can I afford the game? Are they using revenue generating tactics in the game that appeal to greed, jealousy, and lust and, if so, am I going to tolerate that? Can it be avoided or disregarded? Since everyone has different preferences those questions can determine whether it's really appropriate to play and pay for a game as it applies to each of us.
Do people ever consider how much most mmos cost per year compared to most other games? To fully fund an mmo experience with a subscription, xpacs/dlc, and a cash shop can easily cost $250+ per year. Even without a cash shop it's $200+ per year (with an xpac). People cite that it's only 50 cents a day and that's cheap, but many other games with replayability and longevity are a lot cheaper. Do mmos offer real value with long term replayability or do they just offer the ability to repeat the same tasks over and over again like any other non-mmo game? Pay to win arguments answer none of those questions.
Nothing subjective about it, only people that try to defend the reasons for them to pay to progress would come out with a statement like that.
MMO's had very much real value before the whales came along and started demanding "let me buy [insert sales point here]" because they were either to dumb,/to lazy to play the game.
Actually P2W is very subjective, people have all sorts of different ideas on it, hence this thread derp. The whales have been around since the inception of gaming, before cash shops there was Ebay. People have been spending ludicrous amount of money buying things in game since MUDs, hate to break your spirit.
The fact remains that some people just don't have the time to accomplish what they want or to be as competitive as they want so the spend a little to save the time. Some people just have that much money and they don't care about some fantasy ethical code that is supposed to deviate from being realistic. P2W, my i7-4980 + 2 x 980 GTXs vs your 10 year old piece of junk, my Aston Martin vs your pinto, my football team was able to spend 600 million more that your team and we stomped your asses in the superbowl, these are just a couple examples of the reality. Now why does that change with your made up fantasy code of ethics on what people can or can't buy. If the masses are really that up in arms about P2W then start some huge movement to cause gaming companies to change their monetization, because as long as they sell it, we will buy it.
All the P2W QQ makes for entertainment, like the pleb jester entertaining the court, for that we thank you.
CONCIERGE HERE I COME:
Don't hate the playah, hate the game suckaz.
x2
Love the work that has been done by some posters exposing games like AA. Hopefully we can burn it once again, same way the other 2 regions did it. As consumers we have the power to punish those that make shit games and use cash-grab tactics. Of course, this does not work if you are one of the mentally challenged people who will buy every new product out there because you are looking for a new toy and then complains that it did not deliver.
These companies can get away with making shit products because there are people willing to spend cash on trash. I would not doubt that we will start seeing companies selling you games with subs+cash shop(containing boosts like AA).
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
This is the best post in the thread. The implications are very interesting.
I looked up Pay To Win on Google and the most defined example was along the lines of what Loktofeit posted. Essentially you have to pay money in order to consume the content. World of Warcraft is P2W because you cannot consume content beyond level 20 without paying money. This particular definition would not have occurred to me, but in a PvE setting, having to pay for a piece of gear that gets you past a particular encounter and paying for the encounter itself to get gear result in the same thing. Content cannot be consumed without paying money.
I think there is a grey area in PvE content though, and it is a matter of degree. I played Requiem: Momento Moiri and it was kind of a neat game, but after a certain point you could continue playing, but your character just stopped making progress. If you did not pay money for XP potions, you would not progress, or you would progress so slowly that it was functionally the same as not progressing at all. New content was off limits. That, to me, seems to be P2W. I think the biggest issue with this grey area is that the mechanics exist to offset the game's lack of inherent value. It seems like a "trick" to get you into the game and to get you to pay money. I understand that development costs money, etc., but I would much rather spend money on a game from the start, getting a good value for my money than play a game for free, realizing it's not that great and then run up against a pay wall to continue playing.
I think it's a lot easier to have a definition for P2W with PvP content. If you don't pay money, you are at such a disadvantage against other players who have paid money that your chance of winning is zero or nearly zero. Same idea, but it's easier to see the Win portion of P2W with PvP.
Like I said in a previous post, the term is just too subjective and situation to be useful. At some point every game designer, software developer, and person wants to be paid for their efforts. There is the odd hobby project, but unless we're looking at independently wealthy people, they still need income somehow.
So games need to make money. We need to fork over. The problem with P2W is that it tries to moralize the monetization and can mean any number of things as DamonVile said:
1. I want it all for a sub fee, or
2. I want it all free and never have to pay a dime.
Defining P2W subjectively doesn't go anywhere or solve anything. Say a game is "P2W", now what? Are you not supposed to play it now because it has violated gamer morality? What if you like the game and don't mind how much they charge? Does it matter now that it's pay to win?
Why not ask more practical questions like does the game deliver enough value for what they're asking? Do I like the game play and how I have to pay for it? Can I afford the game? Are they using revenue generating tactics in the game that appeal to greed, jealousy, and lust and, if so, am I going to tolerate that? Can it be avoided or disregarded? Since everyone has different preferences those questions can determine whether it's really appropriate to play and pay for a game as it applies to each of us.
Do people ever consider how much most mmos cost per year compared to most other games? To fully fund an mmo experience with a subscription, xpacs/dlc, and a cash shop can easily cost $250+ per year. Even without a cash shop it's $200+ per year (with an xpac). People cite that it's only 50 cents a day and that's cheap, but many other games with replayability and longevity are a lot cheaper. Do mmos offer real value with long term replayability or do they just offer the ability to repeat the same tasks over and over again like any other non-mmo game? Pay to win arguments answer none of those questions.
Nothing subjective about it, only people that try to defend the reasons for them to pay to progress would come out with a statement like that.
MMO's had very much real value before the whales came along and started demanding "let me buy [insert sales point here]" because they were either to dumb,/to lazy to play the game.
Actually P2W is very subjective, people have all sorts of different ideas on it, hence this thread derp. The whales have been around since the inception of gaming, before cash shops there was Ebay. People have been spending ludicrous amount of money buying things in game since MUDs, hate to break your spirit.
The fact remains that some people just don't have the time to accomplish what they want or to be as competitive as they want so the spend a little to save the time. Some people just have that much money and they don't care about some fantasy ethical code that is supposed to deviate from being realistic. P2W, my i7-4980 + 2 x 980 GTXs vs your 10 year old piece of junk, my Aston Martin vs your pinto, my football team was able to spend 600 million more that your team and we stomped your asses in the superbowl, these are just a couple examples of the reality. Now why does that change with your made up fantasy code of ethics on what people can or can't buy. If the masses are really that up in arms about P2W then start some huge movement to cause gaming companies to change their monetization, because as long as they sell it, we will buy it.
All the P2W QQ makes for entertainment, like the pleb jester entertaining the court, for that we thank you.
CONCIERGE HERE I COME:
Don't hate the playah, hate the game suckaz.
x2
Love the work that has been done by some posters exposing games like AA. Hopefully we can burn it once again, same way the other 2 regions did it. As consumers we have the power to punish those that make shit games and use cash-grab tactics. Of course, this does not work if you are one of the mentally challenged people who will buy every new product out there because you are looking for a new toy and then complains that it did not deliver.
These companies can get away with making shit products because there are people willing to spend cash on trash. I would not doubt that we will start seeing companies selling you games with subs+cash shop(containing boosts like AA).
Why would you want it to burn? I'd rather see them actually address all of this and fix the game. It seems like it has a lot going for it. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think the better question is what do you consider an advantage.
To me xp potions are not an advantage. There will always be people faster more efficient or more hours than me so i can't consider anyone who is faster to have an advantage.
To me an advantage is when they can kill something or have an ability i don't it can't becauseodd what they bought ( at my particular level ).
You're missing the point. If the potion gives you an advantage (such as leveling faster) and is sold in a cash shop, then the item is P2W. If you are not bothered by it, that's fine. But that doesn't change what it is.
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
This is the best post in the thread. The implications are very interesting.
I looked up Pay To Win on Google and the most defined example was along the lines of what Loktofeit posted. Essentially you have to pay money in order to consume the content. World of Warcraft is P2W because you cannot consume content beyond level 20 without paying money. This particular definition would not have occurred to me, but in a PvE setting, having to pay for a piece of gear that gets you past a particular encounter and paying for the encounter itself to get gear result in the same thing. Content cannot be consumed without paying money.
I think there is a grey area in PvE content though, and it is a matter of degree. I played Requiem: Momento Moiri and it was kind of a neat game, but after a certain point you could continue playing, but your character just stopped making progress. If you did not pay money for XP potions, you would not progress, or you would progress so slowly that it was functionally the same as not progressing at all. New content was off limits. That, to me, seems to be P2W. I think the biggest issue with this grey area is that the mechanics exist to offset the game's lack of inherent value. It seems like a "trick" to get you into the game and to get you to pay money. I understand that development costs money, etc., but I would much rather spend money on a game from the start, getting a good value for my money than play a game for free, realizing it's not that great and then run up against a pay wall to continue playing.
I think it's a lot easier to have a definition for P2W with PvP content. If you don't pay money, you are at such a disadvantage against other players who have paid money that your chance of winning is zero or nearly zero. Same idea, but it's easier to see the Win portion of P2W with PvP.
Like I said in a previous post, the term is just too subjective and situation to be useful. At some point every game designer, software developer, and person wants to be paid for their efforts. There is the odd hobby project, but unless we're looking at independently wealthy people, they still need income somehow.
So games need to make money. We need to fork over. The problem with P2W is that it tries to moralize the monetization and can mean any number of things as DamonVile said:
1. I want it all for a sub fee, or
2. I want it all free and never have to pay a dime.
Defining P2W subjectively doesn't go anywhere or solve anything. Say a game is "P2W", now what? Are you not supposed to play it now because it has violated gamer morality? What if you like the game and don't mind how much they charge? Does it matter now that it's pay to win?
Why not ask more practical questions like does the game deliver enough value for what they're asking? Do I like the game play and how I have to pay for it? Can I afford the game? Are they using revenue generating tactics in the game that appeal to greed, jealousy, and lust and, if so, am I going to tolerate that? Can it be avoided or disregarded? Since everyone has different preferences those questions can determine whether it's really appropriate to play and pay for a game as it applies to each of us.
Do people ever consider how much most mmos cost per year compared to most other games? To fully fund an mmo experience with a subscription, xpacs/dlc, and a cash shop can easily cost $250+ per year. Even without a cash shop it's $200+ per year (with an xpac). People cite that it's only 50 cents a day and that's cheap, but many other games with replayability and longevity are a lot cheaper. Do mmos offer real value with long term replayability or do they just offer the ability to repeat the same tasks over and over again like any other non-mmo game? Pay to win arguments answer none of those questions.
Nothing subjective about it, only people that try to defend the reasons for them to pay to progress would come out with a statement like that.
MMO's had very much real value before the whales came along and started demanding "let me buy [insert sales point here]" because they were either to dumb,/to lazy to play the game.
Actually P2W is very subjective, people have all sorts of different ideas on it, hence this thread derp. The whales have been around since the inception of gaming, before cash shops there was Ebay. People have been spending ludicrous amount of money buying things in game since MUDs, hate to break your spirit.
The fact remains that some people just don't have the time to accomplish what they want or to be as competitive as they want so the spend a little to save the time. Some people just have that much money and they don't care about some fantasy ethical code that is supposed to deviate from being realistic. P2W, my i7-4980 + 2 x 980 GTXs vs your 10 year old piece of junk, my Aston Martin vs your pinto, my football team was able to spend 600 million more that your team and we stomped your asses in the superbowl, these are just a couple examples of the reality. Now why does that change with your made up fantasy code of ethics on what people can or can't buy. If the masses are really that up in arms about P2W then start some huge movement to cause gaming companies to change their monetization, because as long as they sell it, we will buy it.
All the P2W QQ makes for entertainment, like the pleb jester entertaining the court, for that we thank you.
CONCIERGE HERE I COME:
Don't hate the playah, hate the game suckaz.
x2
Love the work that has been done by some posters exposing games like AA. Hopefully we can burn it once again, same way the other 2 regions did it. As consumers we have the power to punish those that make shit games and use cash-grab tactics. Of course, this does not work if you are one of the mentally challenged people who will buy every new product out there because you are looking for a new toy and then complains that it did not deliver.
These companies can get away with making shit products because there are people willing to spend cash on trash. I would not doubt that we will start seeing companies selling you games with subs+cash shop(containing boosts like AA).
Why would you want it to burn? I'd rather see them actually address all of this and fix the game. It seems like it has a lot going for it. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Because it becomes standard to release games that need to be fixed 3 seconds after release. They have some poor souls paying to play alpha/beta + I assume their own testers, and still can't get it right. In AA is even worse because it's not even a new game. In this case, we knew the "baby" was going to be "special" and still people bought it.
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
Come on, Lok. If buying an expansion is P2W then so too is buying the initial game, itself.
Originally posted by grimal ...If the potion gives you an advantage (such as leveling faster) and is sold in a cash shop, then the item is P2W. If you are not bothered by it, that's fine. But that doesn't change what it is.
My thoughts exactly.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
To me, Pay to Win means that players can buy an advantage not otherwise attainable/obtainable through normal gameplay. The most ubiquitous example of Pay to Win is charging for expansions.
Come on, Lok. If buying an expansion is P2W then so too is buying the initial game, itself.
Originally posted by grimal ...If the potion gives you an advantage (such as leveling faster) and is sold in a cash shop, then the item is P2W. If you are not bothered by it, that's fine. But that doesn't change what it is.
My thoughts exactly.
I don't think thats necessarily true...
Leveling speed isn't really P2W... it would actually be considered convenience. What do you gain truly by leveling faster than someone else? If time ='s money then why can't money = time? The more you spend monetarily the less you spend chronologically.
Where P2W really comes in are boosts to things that are integral to actually "winning" the game. For example - games that require a gear grind as end game. If you can get a full suit of end game gear - the end all be all of gear people grind months for -- then yes that would be pay 2 win. Technically having to play the game and grind dungeons requires at least the rudimentary sense of longevity and skill to accomplish the task -- so someone who is able to bypass all of that with a wallet would definitely "win" in that situation having to do none of that.
I think most companies are pretty good at trying to get people to pay for convenience rather than getting people to pay for massive advantages.
P2W is being able to buy anything that provides a marked gameplay advantage. (Better weapons/armor, In-game currency, Exp boosters, etc) Being able to get stronger by playing the game more is not P2W as that is the entire point of the game, playing. You have to actually work for it in-game. Not just be rich in real life and buy your way to the top without ever doing anything.
It is the same as irl, would you consider the guy who goes to the gym 4-5 hours a day for several years a cheater? or the guy who just sticks steroids and synthol up his arms to look big?
Pay to win is people who pay money beat out what players can earn in game at end game. Its pay to win when top tier gear can be bought with cash. I have no problem with a game selling tier 1 raid or PvP gear as most MMOers dont need to long learning curve of getting geared. Anything past level boosts and low level gear players should earn everything. If they dont, that IMO is pay to win.
I think people should stop arguing about definition.
Those games offer you an advantage, weather that is to become super powerful, bypass lots of grind, get things faster, or look cooler.
Some people are not happy with that. That's it.
Why bother arguing about the definition instead of the context.
Also stop arguing about perspective. If you dont' felt like something is an advantage, that is how you personaly feel. There are however many people that don't felt that way too.
That is like arguing about someone's personal taste.
Awesome topic, what will be next? What does Potato mean to you? Seriously.
Pay-2-Win = pay for any form of advantage
There is no hidden meaning, its that simple.
It's funny you say that.
I believe that everybody really knows what it means deep down. Nobody questions "P2W" when talking about the many games games from publishers like G-Pot, Aeria, and PWI and the like.
It's only when the game is something someone likes, but has P2W.....or elements of it, and they don't want to admit it. Then we start seeing semantics.
"You don't really 'Win' in an MMO"
Well, maybe..........but you can sure as hell lose in PVP.
Awesome topic, what will be next? What does Potato mean to you? Seriously.
Pay-2-Win = pay for any form of advantage
There is no hidden meaning, its that simple.
It's funny you say that.
I believe that everybody really knows what it means deep down. Nobody questions "P2W" when talking about the many games games from publishers like G-Pot, Aeria, and PWI and the like.
It's only when the game is something someone likes, but has P2W.....or elements of it, and they don't want to admit it. Then we start seeing semantics.
"You don't really 'Win' in an MMO"
Well, maybe..........but you can sure as hell lose in PVP.
Exactly. People become emotionally attached to a game and the idea that they enjoy a P2W game scares them to the point of denial.
Comments
P2W, to me is anything that doesn't use the same business model as PoE.
If I'm looking to play F2P, it better be F2P, completely, like PoE, if it isn't I'm not touching it, I'm not wasting time on it.
Seeing all of these F2P games releasing makes me happy that I've spent 85% of my time gaming on WoW, I'll gladly pay a sub and buy xpacs if you can make and maintain a good game with lots of content, updates, with no advantages other than just playing.
It is true that some people in the mmo community have "mangled" the meaning of p2w. You OP are a prime example.
If two people play a game for the same amount of time but one gets an advantage because they pay money then that is p2w. Even moreso, if like in AA, you get a greater advantage the more you pay.
Depending on how it is implemented this might not be such a big issue, but it becomes extremely dodgy business practice if the base game experience requires a sub, and the game has p2w elements on top of paying a sub- like in AA. In fact the facebook-game like paywalls in AA on top of demanding a sub is one of the saddest things I have seen brought to mainstream mmos.
Anyway, I would argue that there are also degrees of p2w, just as there are degrees of crime. For example, just because stealing is less destructive than murder does not mean that stealing is not a crime.
So the spate of p2w apologists that have come out of the woodwork on the back of AA's popularity would have us believe that an in game advantage purchased with cash is not p2w because there are games that have an even more extreme form of p2w (purchasing cash shop only powerful items)- something that as far as I know is not found in any AAA mmo.
So I ask you this- what is your problem with calling a spade a spade? Why can't you just say yeah its p2w, but it doesn't impact the game that much and even can help players with less time to play get through the game in a more enjoyable fashion (keep up with friends etc)? Do you want to see future games also level a sub on us and demand extra cash for in game advantages?
Awesome topic, what will be next? What does Potato mean to you? Seriously.
Pay-2-Win = pay for any form of advantage
There is no hidden meaning, its that simple.
I looked up Pay To Win on Google and the most defined example was along the lines of what Loktofeit posted. Essentially you have to pay money in order to consume the content. World of Warcraft is P2W because you cannot consume content beyond level 20 without paying money. This particular definition would not have occurred to me, but in a PvE setting, having to pay for a piece of gear that gets you past a particular encounter and paying for the encounter itself to get gear result in the same thing. Content cannot be consumed without paying money.
I think there is a grey area in PvE content though, and it is a matter of degree. I played Requiem: Momento Moiri and it was kind of a neat game, but after a certain point you could continue playing, but your character just stopped making progress. If you did not pay money for XP potions, you would not progress, or you would progress so slowly that it was functionally the same as not progressing at all. New content was off limits. That, to me, seems to be P2W. I think the biggest issue with this grey area is that the mechanics exist to offset the game's lack of inherent value. It seems like a "trick" to get you into the game and to get you to pay money. I understand that development costs money, etc., but I would much rather spend money on a game from the start, getting a good value for my money than play a game for free, realizing it's not that great and then run up against a pay wall to continue playing.
I think it's a lot easier to have a definition for P2W with PvP content. If you don't pay money, you are at such a disadvantage against other players who have paid money that your chance of winning is zero or nearly zero. Same idea, but it's easier to see the Win portion of P2W with PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To me xp potions are not an advantage. There will always be people faster more efficient or more hours than me so i can't consider anyone who is faster to have an advantage.
To me an advantage is when they can kill something or have an ability i don't it can't becauseodd what they bought ( at my particular level ).
Your entire post is summed up by the above nonsense. Your examples have nothing to do with "paying" for an advantage which is what PAY to win means.
Anything that gives an advantage that can be received from paying for it with real money = pay to win (no sub based games are not P2W because then ALL PLAYERS ARE PAYING and none are gaining an advantage)
Not just weapons or armor. not just something that gives a buff. its anything that gives an advantage over someone that does not pay for those things.
Free to play games started out with shops with nothing more than mundane items in them. Costumes with NO STATS, bag space increases, character slots and the like. Nothing that gave an advantage over another. No doubt someone is going to say that having more bag space is an advantage because they can get more loot and thus more gold because they for some reason feel the need to defend companies blindly, its BOGUS. .
Having 50 bag slots while someone else has 40 does not get me to end game faster, it doesn't help me travel faster, it doesn't help me kill another player easier and it doesn't allow me to make more crafting items.
YEARS later some F2P games started selling items with stat increases, mounts with stats, potions and that is when the P2W label came about. AA, and I PAY to play the Japanese version BTW, is a P2W game period. Paying gives double the LP and gives offline LP, a thing that is a MUST in the game and is needed for far too many things. It allows land ownership, a thing that is a MUST in the game if you really want to enjoy it. You can buy crafting components, LP potions, XP/honor/ vocation boosts.
Its an advantage being paid for and no, being able to earn these things by buying credits (in the American version) from other players does not negate this because guess what? PEOPLE ARE BUYING THOSE CREDITS WITH REAL MONEY AND TRADING IT FOR YOUR GOLD...for an advantage.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Nothing subjective about it, only people that try to defend the reasons for them to pay to progress would come out with a statement like that.
MMO's had very much real value before the whales came along and started demanding "let me buy [insert sales point here]" because they were either to dumb,/to lazy to play the game.
Subscription games are Pay-to-Play. OF COURSE THAT MEANS THAT, TECHNICALLY, IF YOU'RE INTO SEMANTIC NONSENSE, THEY ARE ALSO PAY-TO-WIN.
You can't win if you can't PLAY, after all.
This is why it's best to just ignore the idea of P2W when determining whether it includes subbing or not. Subbing (aka P2P. Pay-to-play) by default technically includes P2W because you need to be able to PLAY to win in the first place. Therefore, the term P2W has no meaning if you're just slapping it on a game just for being sub-based.
Bear in mind that the 20 level trial also is meaningless to this, because "Pay to continue" is basically the same as "Pay to Play, with a free temporary trial", and it's all SEMANTIC NONSENSE to argue otherwise, no matter how long the trial is. For example, most people consider Archeage to be sub-based (with the F2P option really just being a really really extended trial) and thus not what they are referring to when P2W arguments come up. (there is, of course, some subjectivity there. Many simply consider owning a house etc to be part of the "true" contents of archeage and that requires a sub)
Now, where the term P2W has MEANING for a sub game is if the sub game includes a sub AND a cash shop that provides advantages, especially in a competitive environment. Honestly I really shouldn't have to be bringing this up but as always people love to troll with meaningless technicalities.
Well, on the one hand the term 'Pay to Win' or 'P2W' doesn't have an official meaning, as it's basically slang. However, what it used to unanimously be used for was to mean 'buying power'.
However, nowadays it's been bastardized to the point where it basically means 'paying for advantage' aka 'this game has a cash shop, F this game'. It's been so thoroughly misused that the phrase effectively has no meaning anymore. You can actually apply it to any online game ever made, by its current used definition.
Personally, I think the last MMO to get made that was actually P2W, was Allods. In that game you can use real money to buy materials to craft ridiculously powerful gear, with stats that were virtually impossible to get by normal players (and were significantly better for dungeon gear). I've been told that it evens out at max level, but the grind is a long one. And trying to pvp without those advantages means literally getting 1-2 shot by players who have them.
That, imho is pay 2 win. You are buying power. I don't agree with the current mentality that buying convenience, cosmetic items, play time, labor points, etc. is 'pay 2 win'. Do a lot of these games have bad F2P systems? Absolutely. But that doesn't automatically make them P2W. And we shouldn't forget that we've had games like GW2, & TERA which have had great F2P system, that absolutely do not grant power.
Actually P2W is very subjective, people have all sorts of different ideas on it, hence this thread derp. The whales have been around since the inception of gaming, before cash shops there was Ebay. People have been spending ludicrous amount of money buying things in game since MUDs, hate to break your spirit.
The fact remains that some people just don't have the time to accomplish what they want or to be as competitive as they want so the spend a little to save the time. Some people just have that much money and they don't care about some fantasy ethical code that is supposed to deviate from being realistic. P2W, my i7-4980 + 2 x 980 GTXs vs your 10 year old piece of junk, my Aston Martin vs your pinto, my football team was able to spend 600 million more that your team and we stomped your asses in the superbowl, these are just a couple examples of the reality. Now why does that change with your made up fantasy code of ethics on what people can or can't buy. If the masses are really that up in arms about P2W then start some huge movement to cause gaming companies to change their monetization, because as long as they sell it, we will buy it.
All the P2W QQ makes for entertainment, like the pleb jester entertaining the court, for that we thank you.
CONCIERGE HERE I COME:
Don't hate the playah, hate the game suckaz.
P2W just describes the rule, or rule set that allows players to purchase advancement with real life money, and just like any rule to any game, players will judge it to be fair or unfair. It has nothing to do with whether or not P2W is an advantage, but whether that advantage is fair or unfair.
AA's labor potion changes before release simply proves the point that a P2W cash shop can be tolerated if the advantage isn't too unfair.
x2
Love the work that has been done by some posters exposing games like AA. Hopefully we can burn it once again, same way the other 2 regions did it. As consumers we have the power to punish those that make shit games and use cash-grab tactics. Of course, this does not work if you are one of the mentally challenged people who will buy every new product out there because you are looking for a new toy and then complains that it did not deliver.
These companies can get away with making shit products because there are people willing to spend cash on trash. I would not doubt that we will start seeing companies selling you games with subs+cash shop(containing boosts like AA).
Why would you want it to burn? I'd rather see them actually address all of this and fix the game. It seems like it has a lot going for it. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
You're missing the point. If the potion gives you an advantage (such as leveling faster) and is sold in a cash shop, then the item is P2W. If you are not bothered by it, that's fine. But that doesn't change what it is.
Nothing. Particularly when i play solo pve, and what others do ... does not concern me.
Because it becomes standard to release games that need to be fixed 3 seconds after release. They have some poor souls paying to play alpha/beta + I assume their own testers, and still can't get it right. In AA is even worse because it's not even a new game. In this case, we knew the "baby" was going to be "special" and still people bought it.
Come on, Lok. If buying an expansion is P2W then so too is buying the initial game, itself.
My thoughts exactly.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I don't think thats necessarily true...
Leveling speed isn't really P2W... it would actually be considered convenience. What do you gain truly by leveling faster than someone else? If time ='s money then why can't money = time? The more you spend monetarily the less you spend chronologically.
Where P2W really comes in are boosts to things that are integral to actually "winning" the game. For example - games that require a gear grind as end game. If you can get a full suit of end game gear - the end all be all of gear people grind months for -- then yes that would be pay 2 win. Technically having to play the game and grind dungeons requires at least the rudimentary sense of longevity and skill to accomplish the task -- so someone who is able to bypass all of that with a wallet would definitely "win" in that situation having to do none of that.
I think most companies are pretty good at trying to get people to pay for convenience rather than getting people to pay for massive advantages.
P2W is being able to buy anything that provides a marked gameplay advantage. (Better weapons/armor, In-game currency, Exp boosters, etc) Being able to get stronger by playing the game more is not P2W as that is the entire point of the game, playing. You have to actually work for it in-game. Not just be rich in real life and buy your way to the top without ever doing anything.
It is the same as irl, would you consider the guy who goes to the gym 4-5 hours a day for several years a cheater? or the guy who just sticks steroids and synthol up his arms to look big?
At a higher level the higher level is always at an advantage. The potion doesn't change that.
I think people should stop arguing about definition.
Those games offer you an advantage, weather that is to become super powerful, bypass lots of grind, get things faster, or look cooler.
Some people are not happy with that. That's it.
Why bother arguing about the definition instead of the context.
Also stop arguing about perspective. If you dont' felt like something is an advantage, that is how you personaly feel. There are however many people that don't felt that way too.
That is like arguing about someone's personal taste.
It's funny you say that.
I believe that everybody really knows what it means deep down. Nobody questions "P2W" when talking about the many games games from publishers like G-Pot, Aeria, and PWI and the like.
It's only when the game is something someone likes, but has P2W.....or elements of it, and they don't want to admit it. Then we start seeing semantics.
"You don't really 'Win' in an MMO"
Well, maybe..........but you can sure as hell lose in PVP.
Exactly. People become emotionally attached to a game and the idea that they enjoy a P2W game scares them to the point of denial.