It's been like a week since I made a comment in this thread about people running in circles, and y'all still doing it. This should really just get locked at this point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
To you, hitting a home run is not longer skill when you've done it 50 times?
You seem to think "skill" can be removed from normal game play (running down a dark path), and skill ONLY comes into play if people are discussing pay to win. You do not understand that everyone's skill is pervasive & involved in everything. And is not a determining factor in a P2W function.
Lastly, we are not talking about games which deliberately create a grind, which are typically cheap korean grinders who put large grinds in their games to stop people from seeing how little content their free games has.
How, or why People want to get past that "grind" doesn't define pay to win. In your examples you only discuss the reason someone would want to use pay to win, not the actual function. You define nothing.
Once again, you are incapable of understanding what a definition is, and how to apply and use it. You are once again making up scenarios to support your qualifier that wining has something to do with skill, when in fact we have demonstrated that is does not. And you have agreed in so many ways. Yet still try to slip that in as a qualifier.
Why?
In real life the skill required to hit a home run varies because it's a PVP game and you're facing off against a pitcher. In a PVE videogame, the pitch is essentially coming in at the exact same angle each time, which means that yes after the third or fourth time hitting the homerun in the exact same way and winning you're no longer really proving any significant skill and it's just repetition. Does the PVE baseball game vary the pitch? Well then maybe it remains a matter of skill for longer than 3-4 victories. With a dynamic enough game that's constantly varying the challenge, it can remain skill-intensive quite a while. (And that's why dynamic games, or games with a lot of content, are far more popular than excessively repetitive ones.)
Where have I mentioned skill being removed from normal gameplay? What I've said is it ceases to be meaningful past a certain point. Players refer to this point as "grind": it's when they've ceased working on skillful mastery of the game, and now it's no longer about skill development, it's just about repetition.
We can't really completely avoid talking about games which deliberately create a grind, because it's always done to some degree (starting with subscription games that involved substantially more timesinks than previous game genres.) Whether someone considers it a problem is subjective (based on how much repetition they're willing to endure) but whether it's pay to win isn't.
"How, or why People want to" implies you didn't really read my examples, which didn't speak to how/why players might want to pay to collect an achievement.
Still, the heart of why most players dislike pay to win does lie with their motivation. The most common way games are enjoyed is pattern mastery (Koster, 2004) and true pay to win skips that; hence the dislike.
Your closing paragraph comes out of the blue, considering how none of the earlier stuff you wrote proved that my definition was faulty in some way. My definition is the likely origin of the phrase, based on an objective meaning of win and near-universally disliked (as opposed to your nebulously subjective definition that includes many acceptable types of microtransactions, and essentially includes every possible purchase, making it outright useless as a term.) So whether or not you feel it's the most common use of the term, surely you can agree it's a better definition with superior usefulness.
You have not defended your own arguments, or clarified them. Matter of fact, you have cleverly avoided my own questions, because they would reveal you. And instead you keep on with the same line of disruptive nonesense.
You are quite amazing, this is how you (Axehilt) are trying to define things:
In a PVE videogame, the pitch is essentially coming in at the exact same angle each time.
Wrong, that is an opinion. It CAN come at you the same angles every time, that does not mean it does.
With a dynamic enough game that's constantly varying the challenge, it can remain skill-intensive quite a while.
Who determines how dynamic a game has to be, before skill is valid?
What I've said is it ceases to be meaningful past a certain point.
At a certain point, or to a certain point, is not part of a definition. Water is always water. Once again, you are talking about severity, or how much. That is not a definition.
We can't really completely avoid talking about games which deliberately create a grind.
Deliberate grinds have nothing to do with a definition. Nor does how well, or how bad a game is made.
"How, or why People want to" implies you didn't really read my examples, which didn't speak to how/why players might want to pay to collect an achievement.
Incorrect. It means your example needs a reason for someone doing something. Not whether or not it has been done.
Axehilt,
In none of your postings, do you actually back up, or even qualify your own statements. You go on to explain how they COULD be right, given a certain scenario or qualifier. But again, that is not a definition. You are stuck in your own cognitive dissonance and cant get out of your own circular argument.
Lastly, why..? That is what most here do not understand. Why is your aversion to the term "pay to win" and why are you trying to re-define it?
The only F2P cash shop game which I did enjoy for longer and playing sometimes over the years is:
Team Fortress 2
In general almost all other F2P games I tried was a letdown for me...especially in the mmorpg genre and the worst were those who were released already with such features, with its content and gameplay just around the cash shop.
An exception is actually Elder Scrolls Online, at least last time I played it the ingame shop did not look like P2W, but the game is not a true F2P you have to buy the game client. As long it doesnt change into a GW2 type game shop its actually really interesting. It doesnt give you a feeling of a slot machine, no annoying mechanics and content/gameplay around the cash shop like in most such F2P games.
Like most cash shop games with heavily content and gameplay around the shop, they remind on annoying TV commercial brakes during the time watching a movie. They destroy immersion and certain feel for the game, always remembering on the cash shop with all kind of tricks...
You have not defended your own arguments, or clarified them. Matter of fact, you have cleverly avoided my own questions, because they would reveal you. And instead you keep on with the same line of disruptive nonesense.
You are quite amazing, this is how you (Axehilt) are trying to define things:
In a PVE videogame, the pitch is essentially coming in at the exact same angle each time.
Wrong, that is an opinion. It CAN come at you the same angles every time, that does not mean it does.
With a dynamic enough game that's constantly varying the challenge, it can remain skill-intensive quite a while.
Who determines how dynamic a game has to be, before skill is valid?
What I've said is it ceases to be meaningful past a certain point.
At a certain point, or to a certain point, is not part of a definition. Water is always water. Once again, you are talking about severity, or how much. That is not a definition.
We can't really completely avoid talking about games which deliberately create a grind.
Deliberate grinds have nothing to do with a definition. Nor does how well, or how bad a game is made.
"How, or why People want to" implies you didn't really read my examples, which didn't speak to how/why players might want to pay to collect an achievement.
Incorrect. It means your example needs a reason for someone doing something. Not whether or not it has been done.
Axehilt,
In none of your postings, do you actually back up, or even qualify your own statements. You go on to explain how they COULD be right, given a certain scenario or qualifier. But again, that is not a definition. You are stuck in your own cognitive dissonance and cant get out of your own circular argument.
Lastly, why..? That is what most here do not understand. Why is your aversion to the term "pay to win" and why are you trying to re-define it?
I've answered all your questions. Do you need more clarity? Well then say something to indicate where you're confused.
My PVE baseball game example ran through both possibilities: non-dynamic and dynamic gameplay. With non-dynamic pitches you're only going to have to win 3-4 times before skill mastery becomes simple repetition. With dynamic pitches the skill required will vary and so (depending on how dynamic it is) it will keep being about skill mastery for a longer time. Your narrow one-sentence-at-a-time quoting seemed to miss the fact that I described all the possibilities.
The amount of dynamic is what determines how long players are mastering the skill, before it becomes simple repetition. It's not a person determining how dynamic a game has to be because we're not talking about a single cutoff point. A game might barely be dynamic (two pitch angles) at which point maybe 6 wins prove your mastery over the game and transition you to 'repetition mode'. Or a game might be extremely dynamic (many pitch angles and curving trajectories among other factors) in which case reliably hitting homeruns might be a skill that demands an extremely long period of practice, working towards mastery.
Water is always water, but when we're discussing ice we're discussing a particular form of water. With pay to win the underlying intent is focused on meaningful wins, so we ignore the repetitive wins.
Deliberate grinds are unrelated, but must be mentioned. Some posters seem to mistakenly believe "P2W" is the only way they can complain about monetization in games, and so when you prune the definition down to a concise, clear definition then they think that somehow prevents them from complaining about things which aren't P2W. This is wrong. So it's important to remind these players that they're still allowed to hate XP Grind and XP Potions (among other monetization methods), and that needn't cause us to use a mangled must-include-everything definition of P2W.
You still haven't really established what you mean with the whole "how/why" business. In my example, players could buy an achievement, bypassing the typical activities required to collect that achievement. Are you asking why they'd want to do this? That should be obvious: they're completionists. So I assume you're trying to communicate something else, and failing.
My definition is backed up logically. Time and again I've pointed out how my definition isn't uselessly subjective (as yours is), due to its basis in the objective definition which almost certainly spawned the phrase in the first place. My definition is also logically more functional, because it draws a border around things universally hated (paying to win) and the non-winning stuff (conveniences, cosmetics.) Conversely the definition you seem to hold is so subjective that literally everything can be considered pay to win, which deprives the term of any useful function (again: why not use the term "purchase" to refer to purchases?)
As for why, I don't have an aversion to pay to win as a term. I have an aversion to people wanting to water words down into subjective goop which is incapable of meaning.
Why do you want that subjective goop? As mentioned earlier, if someone actually had an agenda against gamers they'd advocate meaningless definitions which are too subjective to support intelligent conversation. It would empower gamers to discuss the topic in clear, actionable ways to use my definition. Why are you against that?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Do you see how long and protracted your rebuttal is, to some simple qualifiers? You are trying to make a case for "Pay To Win" isn't all that bad. Once again trying to place focus on the severity of things/situations.
I'm starting to get a feel of who you are and why you are here. I see you flexing certain agendas. It will not work. I am unbiased and truly want whats best for others. The industry sucks.
I think I know (who) you, now.
I applaud the following word-smithing, it is Top Notch all the way. Quality stuff.
quote: "In my example, players could buy an achievement,
bypassing the typical activities required to collect that achievement.
Are you asking why they'd want to do this? That should be obvious:
they're completionists. So I assume you're trying to communicate
something else, and failing."
I'm starting to get a feel of who you are and why you are here. I see you flexing certain agendas. It will not work. I am unbiased and truly want whats best for others. The industry sucks.
I think I know (who) you, now.
I applaud the following word-smithing, it is Top Notch all the way. Quality stuff.
quote: "In my example, players could buy an achievement,
bypassing the typical activities required to collect that achievement.
Are you asking why they'd want to do this? That should be obvious:
they're completionists. So I assume you're trying to communicate
something else, and failing."
Do you see how long and protracted your rebuttal is, to some simple qualifiers? You are trying to make a case for "Pay To Win" isn't all that bad. Once again trying to place focus on the severity of things/situations.
You have no argument to stand on, You folded.
Pinning the tail on the donkey is obviously not your strength. Might be more fun if you are in fact inebriated.
Lastly, why..? That is what most here do not understand. Why is your aversion to the term "pay to win" and why are you trying to re-define it?
You are the only person trying to re-define the term P2W, and keep confusing it with Pay for Advantage, when they are clearly two different things. Makes discussing the issue with you pointless.
I have no aversion to the term P2W, but I insist it be used properly, and only where applicable. (Grammar Nazi at heart)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I am not re-defining anything. I am holding people to THEIR definition and when theirs fails & falls apart under scrutiny, I point to the actual definition.
The actual definition can not be scrutinized and stands as is. That is why Others always have to use a story w/qualifier, instead accepting that it stands on it's own. And that paying for advantage is the context of "win" with regards to the term. No how matter how significant, or insignificant. No matter how much water, or how little there is, it is still defined as water.
You have to know sentence structure and logic. Not listen to people who throw in qualifiers to try and make one point, but not all points. Making one little point, while failing at all others is not what a definition does. A definition defines all aspects. Many here are trying to make a point, based on "feeling, or "emotions" and how little or how much, or the severity of p2w. Even though they will concede when held to the definition, it is still a "little bit" pay to win, or "somewhat pay to win", etc. And then go on discussing how little of an impact a p2w mechanic may, or may not have. When they are only actually discussing the severity or amount of p2w effect.
Once a game is defined as P2W, then you can talk about how much of a P2W game it is, or how little a P2W game it is. Not whether or not it is P2W.
That is the agenda of these people, who do not want others to learn about their own social habits and self reflect on game styles. Once they do, (& self analyze) these Players usually climb ashore and out of the sea, and there is one less person for these cheezy Developers to try and harpoon.
Paying a Developer for in game advantages in a MMORPG environment allows those with more money, (hour to hour, day to day, year to year) to "win" over those who do not pay.
I think we all understand that. Except a short few who have an agenda and can never give this community a reason why they favor P2W mechanics that they are arguing in favor of. Or offer as an excuse that nothing is ever P2W to them. And give ONE reason why.
I am not re-defining anything. I am holding people to THEIR definition and when theirs fails & falls apart under scrutiny, I point to the actual definition.
The actual definition can not be scrutinized and stands as is. That is why Others always have to use a story w/qualifier, instead accepting that it stands on it's own. And that paying for advantage is the context of "win" with regards to the term. No how matter how significant, or insignificant. No matter how much water, or how little there is, it is still defined as water.
You have to know sentence structure and logic. Not listen to people who throw in qualifiers to try and make one point, but not all points. Making one little point, while failing at all others is not what a definition does. A definition defines all aspects. Many here are trying to make a point, based on "feeling, or "emotions" and how little or how much, or the severity of p2w. Even though they will concede when held to the definition, it is still a "little bit" pay to win, or "somewhat pay to win", etc. And then go on discussing how little of an impact a p2w mechanic may, or may not have. When they are only actually discussing the severity or amount of p2w effect.
Once a game is defined as P2W, then you can talk about how much of a P2W game it is, or how little a P2W game it is. Not whether or not it is P2W.
That is the agenda of these people, who do not want others to learn about their own social habits and self reflect on game styles. Once they do, (& self analyze) these Players usually climb ashore and out of the sea, and there is one less person for these cheezy Developers to try and harpoon.
Paying a Developer for in game advantages in a MMORPG environment allows those with more money, (hour to hour, day to day, year to year) to "win" over those who do not pay.
I think we all understand that. Except a short few who have an agenda and can never give this community a reason why they favor P2W mechanics that they are arguing in favor of. Or offer as an excuse that nothing is ever P2W to them. And give ONE reason why.
Because P2W is a myth pushed by a viewpoint that cash shop = p2w
Either all games are P2W or none are.
You can buy max level characters in any game for real money, this has been the case always.
Who gets the money - devs or some 3rd party gold/account seller?
Correct^
There is probably less than 10 non-pay to win games on the market now. That alone doesn't remove the definition of pay to win.
Coincidentally, buying a "max character" does not mean the game is a "pay to win" game. Just because a Character happens to transfers ownership (from one player to another) doesn't make that Character any more powerful than he was before.
There is probably less than 10 non-pay to win games on the market now. That alone doesn't remove the definition of pay to win.
Coincidentally, buying a "max character" does not mean the game is a "pay to win" game. Just because a Character happens to transfers ownership (from one player to another) doesn't make that Character any more powerful than he was before.
I would agree that 0 is less than 10... (and it would seem that DMKano might agree). Just because they are all Pay to Win, it doesn't change the definition.
Comments
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You have not defended your own arguments, or clarified them. Matter of fact, you have cleverly avoided my own questions, because they would reveal you. And instead you keep on with the same line of disruptive nonesense.
You are quite amazing, this is how you (Axehilt) are trying to define things:
- In a PVE videogame, the pitch is essentially coming in at the exact same angle each time.
Wrong, that is an opinion. It CAN come at you the same angles every time, that does not mean it does.- With a dynamic enough game that's constantly varying the challenge, it can remain skill-intensive quite a while.
Who determines how dynamic a game has to be, before skill is valid?- What I've said is it ceases to be meaningful past a certain point.
At a certain point, or to a certain point, is not part of a definition. Water is always water. Once again, you are talking about severity, or how much. That is not a definition.- We can't really completely avoid talking about games which deliberately create a grind.
Deliberate grinds have nothing to do with a definition. Nor does how well, or how bad a game is made.- "How, or why People want to" implies you didn't really read my examples, which didn't speak to how/why players might want to pay to collect an achievement.
Incorrect. It means your example needs a reason for someone doing something. Not whether or not it has been done.Axehilt,
In none of your postings, do you actually back up, or even qualify your own statements. You go on to explain how they COULD be right, given a certain scenario or qualifier. But again, that is not a definition. You are stuck in your own cognitive dissonance and cant get out of your own circular argument.
Lastly, why..? That is what most here do not understand. Why is your aversion to the term "pay to win" and why are you trying to re-define it?
Team Fortress 2
In general almost all other F2P games I tried was a letdown for me...especially in the mmorpg genre and the worst were those who were released already with such features, with its content and gameplay just around the cash shop.
An exception is actually Elder Scrolls Online, at least last time I played it the ingame shop did not look like P2W, but the game is not a true F2P you have to buy the game client. As long it doesnt change into a GW2 type game shop its actually really interesting. It doesnt give you a feeling of a slot machine, no annoying mechanics and content/gameplay around the cash shop like in most such F2P games.
Like most cash shop games with heavily content and gameplay around the shop, they remind on annoying TV commercial brakes during the time watching a movie. They destroy immersion and certain feel for the game, always remembering on the cash shop with all kind of tricks...
My PVE baseball game example ran through both possibilities: non-dynamic and dynamic gameplay. With non-dynamic pitches you're only going to have to win 3-4 times before skill mastery becomes simple repetition. With dynamic pitches the skill required will vary and so (depending on how dynamic it is) it will keep being about skill mastery for a longer time. Your narrow one-sentence-at-a-time quoting seemed to miss the fact that I described all the possibilities.
The amount of dynamic is what determines how long players are mastering the skill, before it becomes simple repetition. It's not a person determining how dynamic a game has to be because we're not talking about a single cutoff point. A game might barely be dynamic (two pitch angles) at which point maybe 6 wins prove your mastery over the game and transition you to 'repetition mode'. Or a game might be extremely dynamic (many pitch angles and curving trajectories among other factors) in which case reliably hitting homeruns might be a skill that demands an extremely long period of practice, working towards mastery.
Water is always water, but when we're discussing ice we're discussing a particular form of water. With pay to win the underlying intent is focused on meaningful wins, so we ignore the repetitive wins.
Deliberate grinds are unrelated, but must be mentioned. Some posters seem to mistakenly believe "P2W" is the only way they can complain about monetization in games, and so when you prune the definition down to a concise, clear definition then they think that somehow prevents them from complaining about things which aren't P2W. This is wrong. So it's important to remind these players that they're still allowed to hate XP Grind and XP Potions (among other monetization methods), and that needn't cause us to use a mangled must-include-everything definition of P2W.
You still haven't really established what you mean with the whole "how/why" business. In my example, players could buy an achievement, bypassing the typical activities required to collect that achievement. Are you asking why they'd want to do this? That should be obvious: they're completionists. So I assume you're trying to communicate something else, and failing.
My definition is backed up logically. Time and again I've pointed out how my definition isn't uselessly subjective (as yours is), due to its basis in the objective definition which almost certainly spawned the phrase in the first place. My definition is also logically more functional, because it draws a border around things universally hated (paying to win) and the non-winning stuff (conveniences, cosmetics.) Conversely the definition you seem to hold is so subjective that literally everything can be considered pay to win, which deprives the term of any useful function (again: why not use the term "purchase" to refer to purchases?)
As for why, I don't have an aversion to pay to win as a term. I have an aversion to people wanting to water words down into subjective goop which is incapable of meaning.
Why do you want that subjective goop? As mentioned earlier, if someone actually had an agenda against gamers they'd advocate meaningless definitions which are too subjective to support intelligent conversation. It would empower gamers to discuss the topic in clear, actionable ways to use my definition. Why are you against that?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Do you see how long and protracted your rebuttal is, to some simple qualifiers? You are trying to make a case for "Pay To Win" isn't all that bad. Once again trying to place focus on the severity of things/situations.
You have no argument to stand on, You folded.
I'm starting to get a feel of who you are and why you are here. I see you flexing certain agendas. It will not work. I am unbiased and truly want whats best for others. The industry sucks.
I think I know (who) you, now.
I applaud the following word-smithing, it is Top Notch all the way. Quality stuff.
quote:
"In my example, players could buy an achievement, bypassing the typical activities required to collect that achievement. Are you asking why they'd want to do this? That should be obvious: they're completionists. So I assume you're trying to communicate something else, and failing."
Bravo work^ !
- Fails to address my points.
- Fails to establish own points.
- Still claims victory.
You really don't understand winning, do you?"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I have no aversion to the term P2W, but I insist it be used properly, and only where applicable. (Grammar Nazi at heart)
No, he really doesn't understand winning ,that's pretty much clear in the thread.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I am not re-defining anything. I am holding people to THEIR definition and when theirs fails & falls apart under scrutiny, I point to the actual definition.
The actual definition can not be scrutinized and stands as is. That is why Others always have to use a story w/qualifier, instead accepting that it stands on it's own. And that paying for advantage is the context of "win" with regards to the term. No how matter how significant, or insignificant. No matter how much water, or how little there is, it is still defined as water.
You have to know sentence structure and logic.
Not listen to people who throw in qualifiers to try and make one point, but not all points. Making one little point, while failing at all others is not what a definition does. A definition defines all aspects. Many here are trying to make a point, based on "feeling, or "emotions" and how little or how much, or the severity of p2w. Even though they will concede when held to the definition, it is still a "little bit" pay to win, or "somewhat pay to win", etc. And then go on discussing how little of an impact a p2w mechanic may, or may not have. When they are only actually discussing the severity or amount of p2w effect.
Once a game is defined as P2W, then you can talk about how much of a P2W game it is, or how little a P2W game it is. Not whether or not it is P2W.
That is the agenda of these people, who do not want others to learn about their own social habits and self reflect on game styles. Once they do, (& self analyze) these Players usually climb ashore and out of the sea, and there is one less person for these cheezy Developers to try and harpoon.
Paying a Developer for in game advantages in a MMORPG environment allows those with more money, (hour to hour, day to day, year to year) to "win" over those who do not pay.
I think we all understand that. Except a short few who have an agenda and can never give this community a reason why they favor P2W mechanics that they are arguing in favor of. Or offer as an excuse that nothing is ever P2W to them. And give ONE reason why.
Correct^
There is probably less than 10 non-pay to win games on the market now. That alone doesn't remove the definition of pay to win.
Coincidentally, buying a "max character" does not mean the game is a "pay to win" game. Just because a Character happens to transfers ownership (from one player to another) doesn't make that Character any more powerful than he was before.