Pay no less than $30 but no more than $60 per month. That would be reasonable, right?
I happened to pay on average $35 per week ($140-175 per month), and I am flat outright saying, it is disgusting. Am I enjoying it anywhere near as much as I used to enjoy UO, EQ1, EQ2 or Vanguard at $15 per month back in the days? All of those games had substance, all of those games were worth that $15 per month back then. Now a days? LMFAO.
wait .. you are paying $140-$175 for games that you don't think is worth the money? Why don't you just stop?
And if you think it is worth the money, why complain? Something is not logical here.
I agree that lack of evidence is not proof of something... it is lack of proof. However, is morally presumptuous to make accusations of bad behavior without any reasonable belief that it has happened. Using your own example, I could accuse gaming companies of being rapist... and then state that because there is no evidence of this, it doesn't mean it is not true.
I have made a very reasonable request for some evidence of the accused behavior, and found it lacking. This is not a single incident, but rather a decade of action, with little evidence to show any founding for the grandiose claims. This reminds me of many other urban myths (rock and roll = devil worship, etc) that proved not to really be true... but that many people insisted were the case.
You want proof?
Play "Perfect World International" yourself.
Pay no less than $30 but no more than $60 per month. That would be reasonable, right?
I happened to pay on average $35 per week ($140-175 per month), and I am flat outright saying, it is disgusting. Am I enjoying it anywhere near as much as I used to enjoy UO, EQ1, EQ2 or Vanguard at $15 per month back in the days? All of those games had substance, all of those games were worth that $15 per month back then. Now a days? LMFAO.
Make sure you play on Raging Tide server, it is East Coast, I am on that server. I want to see how not greedy you think it is. I want to see you do Territory Wars. I want to see you do Nation Wars. I want to see you bleed.
PS. Whatever it is that makes you think you are superman, I have your kryptonite... Welcome to PWI... Welcome to Hell... Or let me guess? You have no time for that? But you have time to debate here?
Are you for real? You are actually complaining that mmorpg game companies are using microtransaction models instead of subscription and then you do play and pay for microtransaction games from those companies?
It is the principle of the thing. I prefer the "buy the WHOLE game" concept of yesteryear over this buy this piece of armor or weapon here, buy this dye to make it pretty there that cash shops offer. Since almost every MMO has some form of cash shop, I am "fucked" on principle.
I have absolutely no problem paying a set fee every month for the whole game like I do for my telephone, cable service, internet service, and other forms of entertainment. Would pay your cable company on a per show watched every month? How about NetFlix for each movie you watched? Or GameFly for each game rented?
Sure, there are some MMOs where the cash shop is not too intrusive, yet is still there, asking to be used through purposeful game mechanics. All too often, though, MMOs use the cash shop as a "gate" for content.
I understand your opinion and preference. Please try to understand my own
Your opinion and preference is narrow minded though. And really hard to reason with someone whose sole argument is "my way or the highway".
The question is still if it is right to charge you for box price, expansions, monthly fees and then add more stuff to milk the players.
In a B2P there is no problem, they need to get in some money after all and keeping a MMO running just on box price might be hard. That said, the item shop still should be far more limited then a F2P game who doesn't have any box to buy.
But if you run a P2P game I rather have them actually raise the monthly fees and give us access to all the content by actually playing the game.
There are few enough P2P games around, they should stick to their model (well, Wow can do whatever it want since it is so hugely popular). I think they actually looses more then they win by adding an itemshop.
Then again, I also think it sucks when so called F2P games offers a monthly sub so I am pretty narrowminded here as well.
But sell too much stuff in your P2P game and most players will go over to something B2P or F2P instead (again, except Wow).
Will never happen! Companies do not know how to make timely content patches any more.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Originally posted by azzamasin Cash shops are awesome. It allows players to buy and monetize what they want.
Then you're in luck as most games now have some kind of cash shop in it
Players (like me) that prefer to pay once a month and not worry about it anymore (putting the card away) are fucked.
I don't understand how you would be "fucked"? Let's take for instance Rift, Tera, Aion and also Guild Wars 2: Nothing about the core game has changed. So, how would the cash shop affect you in a negative way? They still give you the option to pay a subscription ( except for GW2 of course ) and usually come with additional perks if you "choose" to patronize their business with faction rep bonus, currency bonus, xp bonus, etc...
It is the principle of the thing. I prefer the "buy the WHOLE game" concept of yesteryear over this buy this piece of armor or weapon here, buy this dye to make it pretty there that cash shops offer. Since almost every MMO has some form of cash shop, I am "fucked" on principle.
I have absolutely no problem paying a set fee every month for the whole game like I do for my telephone, cable service, internet service, and other forms of entertainment. Would pay your cable company on a per show watched every month? How about NetFlix for each movie you watched? Or GameFly for each game rented?
Sure, there are some MMOs where the cash shop is not too intrusive, yet is still there, asking to be used through purposeful game mechanics. All too often, though, MMOs use the cash shop as a "gate" for content.
I understand your opinion and preference. Please try to understand my own
While I understand people's personal preference of set fees I refuse to ever play one but to answer your question and to hopefully make you see where I'm coming from:
Telephone: You used to pay extra for long distance, but let's just say you can pay for the basic monthly but it still gets monetized in different ways, such as Apps, Music Downloads, Additional lines, etc. etc.
Internet: Is every site you visit free? I bet you'll have to fork over some extra $$$ to access sites like Netflix or USA Today.
You see you can't go this world without everyone trying to monetize something and everything and while you're never forced to "pay" they'll always have an option for people like me who want too. What your asking is akin to Paying Monthly for Time Warner Cable but demanding Netflix to give you unlimited access to their site.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Posters who are comparing monetisation of gaming with that in other industries are not taking into account the effect different ways of making money effect games.
You can pay for your telephone in many ways, it does not effect your telephone service, just how much you pay for it. But cash shops and casino gameplay have changed the nature of what games are today. So far this has not effected solo games as much. But the reason solo games now nearly all have an online element is because the gaming studios realise that's the way to make more money. In five years time I don't think truly solo game will be made.
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
Could this all have to do with the cost of creating games today compaired to what it cost in the past? You have to take into account today the competition as opposed to then also.
WoW, FFXIV ARR and ESO cash shops don't bother me that much. They can be website only or in-game, there's really no difference. WoW's is now in-game, but it's not "in your face". It's just for those moments where you feel the "shoping need" and you want to give a treat to the developer. What I don't like is LOTRO or SWTOR ones where you have constant advertisements and lots of game features related with the cash shop and are build around it. I leave that to mobile games...
My FFXIV ARR referral code for new EU accounts: 5JPF7ZQ3 Step into the amazing world of Eorzea! Use this reference code on a new account and we'll both get goodies for it!
I agree that lack of evidence is not proof of something... it is lack of proof. However, is morally presumptuous to make accusations of bad behavior without any reasonable belief that it has happened. Using your own example, I could accuse gaming companies of being rapist... and then state that because there is no evidence of this, it doesn't mean it is not true.
I have made a very reasonable request for some evidence of the accused behavior, and found it lacking. This is not a single incident, but rather a decade of action, with little evidence to show any founding for the grandiose claims. This reminds me of many other urban myths (rock and roll = devil worship, etc) that proved not to really be true... but that many people insisted were the case.
You want proof?
Play "Perfect World International" yourself.
Pay no less than $30 but no more than $60 per month. That would be reasonable, right?
I happened to pay on average $35 per week ($140-175 per month), and I am flat outright saying, it is disgusting. Am I enjoying it anywhere near as much as I used to enjoy UO, EQ1, EQ2 or Vanguard at $15 per month back in the days? All of those games had substance, all of those games were worth that $15 per month back then. Now a days? LMFAO.
Make sure you play on Raging Tide server, it is East Coast, I am on that server. I want to see how not greedy you think it is. I want to see you do Territory Wars. I want to see you do Nation Wars. I want to see you bleed.
PS. Whatever it is that makes you think you are superman, I have your kryptonite... Welcome to PWI... Welcome to Hell... Or let me guess? You have no time for that? But you have time to debate here?
Well, I have played Perfect World. I was not particularly fond of the theme. I much preferred Forsaken World when that came out. Neither of these games victimized me in any way. In fact, I didn't find anything worth paying for. If instead, as you suggested, I simply spent money regardless of the results, I would still not be a victim.... I would just be poorer. It would also not make them greedy to take my money (which I am just throwing away) in order to keep the game running, and make a reasonable profit.
I figure they have cash shops now because people patronize them. If you had a business and could add a revenue stream to it wouldn't you? In P2P games I like to the cash shop just cosmetic fluff stuff.
Originally posted by DMKano At Which point was this NOT acceptable? Have gamers become so delusional to think their personal preference should be the driving factor behind business decisions on profitability models?
Excellent question (and one that should have been asked several pages back)!
When MMO's first became commercial it was common to charge a per minute access fee. This is what the monthly fee was designed to compete with. However, as soon as they added additional services (server transfers etc) they had to charge a fee outside of the monthly sub. This was not seen as double dipping, and is the basic premise of the monthly sub + cash shop.
So, the answer is... never. This has been an acceptable system the whole time, it just was not as well developed as it is now. The increased in the available options is due to the increase in operations cost, with a flat monthly sub.
Posters who are comparing monetisation of gaming with that in other industries are not taking into account the effect different ways of making money effect games.
You can pay for your telephone in many ways, it does not effect your telephone service, just how much you pay for it. But cash shops and casino gameplay have changed the nature of what games are today. So far this has not effected solo games as much. But the reason solo games now nearly all have an online element is because the gaming studios realise that's the way to make more money. In five years time I don't think truly solo game will be made.
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
That's just the thing...The option to pay to win has always been there. Doesn't matter what era of MMO we're talking about. I'd argue in some cases it was worse when certain sites were the main way to do it. As you could buy fully decked out..fully leveled accounts. NO need to work for anything at all.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Posters who are comparing monetisation of gaming with that in other industries are not taking into account the effect different ways of making money effect games.
You can pay for your telephone in many ways, it does not effect your telephone service, just how much you pay for it. But cash shops and casino gameplay have changed the nature of what games are today. So far this has not effected solo games as much. But the reason solo games now nearly all have an online element is because the gaming studios realise that's the way to make more money. In five years time I don't think truly solo game will be made.
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
That's just the thing...The option to pay to win has always been there. Doesn't matter what era of MMO we're talking about. I'd argue in some cases it was worse when certain sites were the main way to do it. As you could by fully decked out..fully leveled accounts.
This is very true... however there is a change in public perception.
I am going to use the example of legalized marijuana. We know from many studies (and real world examples) that legalizing and taxing it will actually result in lower long term usage. However, many people (regardless of usage) will feel that making it legal is promoting its use, as it is now out in the open for all too see. This change in visibility is what causes them to decry that making it legal is evil, and bad for society (regardless of actual facts).
This is what is happening here. The increase in visibility is actually what is causing the problem. However, the upside is that it is more controlled, and more affordable. This is a net benefit to everyone... but if you choose to deny its existence prior to the visibility, then you can argue that it is a problem, not a solution.
Pay no less than $30 but no more than $60 per month. That would be reasonable, right?
I happened to pay on average $35 per week ($140-175 per month), and I am flat outright saying, it is disgusting. Am I enjoying it anywhere near as much as I used to enjoy UO, EQ1, EQ2 or Vanguard at $15 per month back in the days? All of those games had substance, all of those games were worth that $15 per month back then. Now a days? LMFAO.
wait .. you are paying $140-$175 for games that you don't think is worth the money? Why don't you just stop?
And if you think it is worth the money, why complain? Something is not logical here.
Something else is not logical here. You posted this in another thread tonight. You wouldn't be "dictating how others spend their money on entertainment", would you?
Of course not.
He can spend his $140-$175 as he likes. I am just puzzled by the ill logic of that decision. On one hand, he is spending that money, and on the other hand, he is complaining about it as not enjoyable.
Obviously, he has the full right to flush his money down stuff he does not enjoy. But the question is why? I don't think it is unfair to ask that question, do you?
Posters who are comparing monetisation of gaming with that in other industries are not taking into account the effect different ways of making money effect games.
You can pay for your telephone in many ways, it does not effect your telephone service, just how much you pay for it. But cash shops and casino gameplay have changed the nature of what games are today. So far this has not effected solo games as much. But the reason solo games now nearly all have an online element is because the gaming studios realise that's the way to make more money. In five years time I don't think truly solo game will be made.
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
That's just the thing...The option to pay to win has always been there. Doesn't matter what era of MMO we're talking about. I'd argue in some cases it was worse when certain sites were the main way to do it. As you could by fully decked out..fully leveled accounts.
This is very true... however there is a change in public perception.
I am going to use the example of legalized marijuana. We know from many studies (and real world examples) that legalizing and taxing it will actually result in lower long term usage. However, many people (regardless of usage) will feel that making it legal is promoting its use, as it is now out in the open for all too see. This change in visibility is what causes them to decry that making it legal is evil, and bad for society (regardless of actual facts).
This is what is happening here. The increase in visibility is actually what is causing the problem. However, the upside is that it is more controlled, and more affordable. This is a net benefit to everyone... but if you choose to deny its existence prior to the visibility, then you can argue that it is a problem, not a solution.
Pretty good point about visibility, as they say.. ignorance is bliss.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
and if you think games are no longer fun, you certainly can decide not to play, or just play the ones that you perceive do not have this problem.
I would give you a little example of how i deal with this. There is this little iOS puzzle games called Rescue Quest (a match-3 with a twist). The gameplay is nice, but there are pay walls everywhere. So what? I play until i hit one ... then do something else until the wall goes away (this is one of those wait x hours or pay type wall).
Does monetization change the game design? Yes. Is *this* particular game still fun to me? Yes. I don't see a conflict.
If there is no more fun games to me, i would worry then (or just go read & watch movie), but that is not happening today or anytime soon.
Posters who are comparing monetisation of gaming with that in other industries are not taking into account the effect different ways of making money effect games.
You can pay for your telephone in many ways, it does not effect your telephone service, just how much you pay for it. But cash shops and casino gameplay have changed the nature of what games are today. So far this has not effected solo games as much. But the reason solo games now nearly all have an online element is because the gaming studios realise that's the way to make more money. In five years time I don't think truly solo game will be made.
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
That's just the thing...The option to pay to win has always been there. Doesn't matter what era of MMO we're talking about. I'd argue in some cases it was worse when certain sites were the main way to do it. As you could by fully decked out..fully leveled accounts.
This is very true... however there is a change in public perception.
I am going to use the example of legalized marijuana. We know from many studies (and real world examples) that legalizing and taxing it will actually result in lower long term usage. However, many people (regardless of usage) will feel that making it legal is promoting its use, as it is now out in the open for all too see. This change in visibility is what causes them to decry that making it legal is evil, and bad for society (regardless of actual facts).
This is what is happening here. The increase in visibility is actually what is causing the problem. However, the upside is that it is more controlled, and more affordable. This is a net benefit to everyone... but if you choose to deny its existence prior to the visibility, then you can argue that it is a problem, not a solution.
Pretty good point about visibility, as they say.. ignorance is bliss.
Firstly comparing people who cheated by buying accounts to gaming companies forcing pay to win on us, is not a valid comparison. The vast majority of players were not cheaters, we played on a level playing field and you are distorting what old school gaming was like by suggesting this comparison.
I do not agree that this has anything to do with the P2W becoming more visible. But thank you for the analogy of marijuana as I will use it myself. Gaming houses are acting like drug dealers, they are making games which use casino design to hook people to take one more shot. That is a world apart from a flat fee, where players were on a equal footing. I have no issue with server transfer fees and the like, that was a service not pay to win.
Also on a separate note, might I suggest to you that if you are seeing more marijuana use, it might just be because more people are using marijuana. Even though studies may 'prove' otherwise. To use your logic, the fact that we now do not see people smoking tobacco in bars, restaurants and offices would mean they are smoking even more now. When in fact they are not. I would suggest to you that if you cut down someone's opportunity to do something they will do less of it, as strange to you as that may seem.
And to answer Nari I do avoid games where the gameplay is too P2W, but in several years time I don't think it will be even possible to do that.
Posters who are comparing monetisation of gaming with that in other industries are not taking into account the effect different ways of making money effect games.
You can pay for your telephone in many ways, it does not effect your telephone service, just how much you pay for it. But cash shops and casino gameplay have changed the nature of what games are today. So far this has not effected solo games as much. But the reason solo games now nearly all have an online element is because the gaming studios realise that's the way to make more money. In five years time I don't think truly solo game will be made.
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
That's just the thing...The option to pay to win has always been there. Doesn't matter what era of MMO we're talking about. I'd argue in some cases it was worse when certain sites were the main way to do it. As you could by fully decked out..fully leveled accounts.
This is very true... however there is a change in public perception.
I am going to use the example of legalized marijuana. We know from many studies (and real world examples) that legalizing and taxing it will actually result in lower long term usage. However, many people (regardless of usage) will feel that making it legal is promoting its use, as it is now out in the open for all too see. This change in visibility is what causes them to decry that making it legal is evil, and bad for society (regardless of actual facts).
This is what is happening here. The increase in visibility is actually what is causing the problem. However, the upside is that it is more controlled, and more affordable. This is a net benefit to everyone... but if you choose to deny its existence prior to the visibility, then you can argue that it is a problem, not a solution.
Pretty good point about visibility, as they say.. ignorance is bliss.
Firstly comparing people who cheated by buying accounts to gaming companies forcing pay to win on us, is not a valid comparison. The vast majority of players were not cheaters, we played on a level playing field and you are distorting what old school gaming was like by suggesting this comparison.
I do not agree that this has anything to do with the P2W becoming more visible. But thank you for the analogy of marijuana as I will use it myself. Gaming houses are acting like drug dealers, they are making game which use casino design to hook people to take one more shot. That is a world apart from a flat fee, where players were on a equal footing. I have no issue with server transfer fees and the like, that was a service not pay to win.
Also on a separate note, might I suggest to you that if you are seeing more marijuana use, it might just be because more people are using marijuana. Even though studies may 'prove' otherwise. To use your logic, the fact that we now do not see people smoking tobacco in bars, restaurants and offices would mean they are smoking even more now. When in fact they are not. I would suggest to you that if you cut down someone's opportunity to do something they will do less of it, as strange to you as that may seem.
And to answer Nari I do avoid games where the gameplay is too P2W, but in a few years time I don't think it will be even possible to do that.
In the US we have one of the most interesting examples to look at... prohibition. From 1920 to 1933 there was a prohibition on the manufacture, sales and distribution of alcohol. This caused a huge INCREASE in demand, and created organized crime (as we know it in the US) to take hold. This 'experiment' clearly showed the result of making something illegal, vs taxing and regulating it.
As we know (from the numbers published every year by different developers/publishers) only a small % of people make purchases via a cash shop. This is less true in P2P than F2P, but it still holds true that only a minority is buying what is offered.
The big change is that now anyone CAN buy in if the like (despite most not buying). In the past, only those heavily invested (hardcore players) were in a position to take advantage. There is also LESS being offered today, as well as lower prices. This means that some still seek the heavy advantages illegally, but that it is actually more difficult, and more expensive to do so.
As for perception vs reality.... well some still believe that the earth is flat... and no amount of discussion is going to dissuade them.
I am not in PWI because this is where I want to be. I am in Limbo because this is where the MMORPG genre overall is. Action Combat is absolutely not for me. So all these great games even up and coming, such as Everquest Next, Black Desert and Bless, I already know will not be for me. Just because of their choice in combat system. So tell me...
Where is there to go?
single player games? Movies? Tv? Novels?
no dev owes you (or me) a game you like, and they are certainly not required to serve every gamer on earth. There is really nothing one can do if one belongs to a preference that is ultraly niche. The good news is that there is so much entertainment around and it is not likely that one will be bored with absolutely nothing to do.
Comments
wait .. you are paying $140-$175 for games that you don't think is worth the money? Why don't you just stop?
And if you think it is worth the money, why complain? Something is not logical here.
Are you for real? You are actually complaining that mmorpg game companies are using microtransaction models instead of subscription and then you do play and pay for microtransaction games from those companies?
Will never happen! Companies do not know how to make timely content patches any more.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
While I understand people's personal preference of set fees I refuse to ever play one but to answer your question and to hopefully make you see where I'm coming from:
Telephone: You used to pay extra for long distance, but let's just say you can pay for the basic monthly but it still gets monetized in different ways, such as Apps, Music Downloads, Additional lines, etc. etc.
Internet: Is every site you visit free? I bet you'll have to fork over some extra $$$ to access sites like Netflix or USA Today.
You see you can't go this world without everyone trying to monetize something and everything and while you're never forced to "pay" they'll always have an option for people like me who want too. What your asking is akin to Paying Monthly for Time Warner Cable but demanding Netflix to give you unlimited access to their site.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Posters who are comparing monetisation of gaming with that in other industries are not taking into account the effect different ways of making money effect games.
You can pay for your telephone in many ways, it does not effect your telephone service, just how much you pay for it. But cash shops and casino gameplay have changed the nature of what games are today. So far this has not effected solo games as much. But the reason solo games now nearly all have an online element is because the gaming studios realise that's the way to make more money. In five years time I don't think truly solo game will be made.
This is game design by monetisation, putting that first and foremost has already destroyed gaming ethos and made Pay to Win the norm.
My FFXIV ARR referral code for new EU accounts: 5JPF7ZQ3
Step into the amazing world of Eorzea! Use this reference code on a new account and we'll both get goodies for it!
Well, I have played Perfect World. I was not particularly fond of the theme. I much preferred Forsaken World when that came out. Neither of these games victimized me in any way. In fact, I didn't find anything worth paying for. If instead, as you suggested, I simply spent money regardless of the results, I would still not be a victim.... I would just be poorer. It would also not make them greedy to take my money (which I am just throwing away) in order to keep the game running, and make a reasonable profit.
Excellent question (and one that should have been asked several pages back)!
When MMO's first became commercial it was common to charge a per minute access fee. This is what the monthly fee was designed to compete with. However, as soon as they added additional services (server transfers etc) they had to charge a fee outside of the monthly sub. This was not seen as double dipping, and is the basic premise of the monthly sub + cash shop.
So, the answer is... never. This has been an acceptable system the whole time, it just was not as well developed as it is now. The increased in the available options is due to the increase in operations cost, with a flat monthly sub.
That's just the thing...The option to pay to win has always been there. Doesn't matter what era of MMO we're talking about. I'd argue in some cases it was worse when certain sites were the main way to do it. As you could buy fully decked out..fully leveled accounts. NO need to work for anything at all.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This is very true... however there is a change in public perception.
I am going to use the example of legalized marijuana. We know from many studies (and real world examples) that legalizing and taxing it will actually result in lower long term usage. However, many people (regardless of usage) will feel that making it legal is promoting its use, as it is now out in the open for all too see. This change in visibility is what causes them to decry that making it legal is evil, and bad for society (regardless of actual facts).
This is what is happening here. The increase in visibility is actually what is causing the problem. However, the upside is that it is more controlled, and more affordable. This is a net benefit to everyone... but if you choose to deny its existence prior to the visibility, then you can argue that it is a problem, not a solution.
Of course not.
He can spend his $140-$175 as he likes. I am just puzzled by the ill logic of that decision. On one hand, he is spending that money, and on the other hand, he is complaining about it as not enjoyable.
Obviously, he has the full right to flush his money down stuff he does not enjoy. But the question is why? I don't think it is unfair to ask that question, do you?
Pretty good point about visibility, as they say.. ignorance is bliss.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
and if you think games are no longer fun, you certainly can decide not to play, or just play the ones that you perceive do not have this problem.
I would give you a little example of how i deal with this. There is this little iOS puzzle games called Rescue Quest (a match-3 with a twist). The gameplay is nice, but there are pay walls everywhere. So what? I play until i hit one ... then do something else until the wall goes away (this is one of those wait x hours or pay type wall).
Does monetization change the game design? Yes. Is *this* particular game still fun to me? Yes. I don't see a conflict.
If there is no more fun games to me, i would worry then (or just go read & watch movie), but that is not happening today or anytime soon.
Firstly comparing people who cheated by buying accounts to gaming companies forcing pay to win on us, is not a valid comparison. The vast majority of players were not cheaters, we played on a level playing field and you are distorting what old school gaming was like by suggesting this comparison.
I do not agree that this has anything to do with the P2W becoming more visible. But thank you for the analogy of marijuana as I will use it myself. Gaming houses are acting like drug dealers, they are making games which use casino design to hook people to take one more shot. That is a world apart from a flat fee, where players were on a equal footing. I have no issue with server transfer fees and the like, that was a service not pay to win.
Also on a separate note, might I suggest to you that if you are seeing more marijuana use, it might just be because more people are using marijuana. Even though studies may 'prove' otherwise. To use your logic, the fact that we now do not see people smoking tobacco in bars, restaurants and offices would mean they are smoking even more now. When in fact they are not. I would suggest to you that if you cut down someone's opportunity to do something they will do less of it, as strange to you as that may seem.
And to answer Nari I do avoid games where the gameplay is too P2W, but in several years time I don't think it will be even possible to do that.
In the US we have one of the most interesting examples to look at... prohibition. From 1920 to 1933 there was a prohibition on the manufacture, sales and distribution of alcohol. This caused a huge INCREASE in demand, and created organized crime (as we know it in the US) to take hold. This 'experiment' clearly showed the result of making something illegal, vs taxing and regulating it.
As we know (from the numbers published every year by different developers/publishers) only a small % of people make purchases via a cash shop. This is less true in P2P than F2P, but it still holds true that only a minority is buying what is offered.
The big change is that now anyone CAN buy in if the like (despite most not buying). In the past, only those heavily invested (hardcore players) were in a position to take advantage. There is also LESS being offered today, as well as lower prices. This means that some still seek the heavy advantages illegally, but that it is actually more difficult, and more expensive to do so.
As for perception vs reality.... well some still believe that the earth is flat... and no amount of discussion is going to dissuade them.
I doubt it ... there is always the free part of the game before p2w kicks in.
However, it is your choice. It is certainly fine if you decide not to play f2p games.
single player games? Movies? Tv? Novels?
no dev owes you (or me) a game you like, and they are certainly not required to serve every gamer on earth. There is really nothing one can do if one belongs to a preference that is ultraly niche. The good news is that there is so much entertainment around and it is not likely that one will be bored with absolutely nothing to do.
You just described how you play f2p games for years and still continue to do so and yet in previous post you say how you don't like microtransactions.
You're supporting microtransaction model with your money and time. You are contradicting yourself and frankly it does not make much sense.
Unless this is a case when you want to stop playing but you are not able to, then I would advise you to seek help because that means addiction.