Naw. P2W is not just about spending RL money for power. It is about spending RL money to have an advantage over someone that does not pay, to have MORE power than someone who does not pay.
If you can earn equivalent power in game (within a subjectively reasonable amount of time) IMO it is not p2w.
More then who? Me, you, him or the next one? We are all not paying but diferently well geared. How much time it must involve and, by who's playing standards? What is "reasonable"?
What you talk is absolutely subjective and there is no way to define it when its beyond simple concept and definition.
No it no subjective, it is very objective, except for the time requirement
If you pay more than someone else (objective), anyone else, and that gives you more power(objective) than is available in game to someone else within a reasonable period of time (that is the sujbjective part).
Than it is p2w.
So you mean that if i come into a game and play for say month to have half the PVP set. Then you, month later, enter too and within 5min you have the full PVP set for X amount of $ and then make me look stupid in a pvp arena its not P2W?
I just have to say LOL
Possibly. I'm assuming we are also the same level? You stated a month to get half the pvp set, so I'm just going to assume 2 months to get a full set. If that is a long time to you than it would be beyond the reasonable amount of time, so yes p2w.
Me. I wouldn't care., 2 months to get a full set is nothing if I like what I'm doing. And by the end of that we both have the same power level so not p2w.
You do realise that by that time you woud be beaten countless times by noobs with money and you are actualy in the next game already :P
Did you miss the part where I said, "If I like what I'm doing". If I like what I'm doing I wouldn't leave the game.
edit -I would also likley be beaten countless times by people who did not use the shop, I'm not very good at pvp.
Im sorry. I missed the part where you said you enjoy to be beaten in PVP until you have max gear and finally reach others that spend money to win. Ofc you mean this scenario only in a purely not P2W game, right?
Now your just making things up. I did not mention my enjoyment or lack of it regarding max gear or even mention pvp at all.
I stated 2 months to get a full set is nothing if I like what I'm doing. And by the end of that we both have the same power level so not p2w.
It's better to respond to the points people are actually saying, rather than making things up to fit your agenda.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
OP, I generaly agree with you and my defintion pretty much matches yours.
To my mind, payment should only provide the opportunity to play the game...it shouldn't provide one with ANYTHING within the game. Things within the game should only be achieved by actions WITHIN the game... I consider anything else a form of CHEATING.
The view I hold USED to be much more prevalent among gamers. I do believe that Developers (along with a new generation of gamers) have pushed the envelope over time more and more into what is considered acceptable to charge for.
It is my opinion that while RMT has been a good thing for the INDUSTRY of gaming. It has been a horrible thing for the HOBBY of gaming.
That said, you are never going to get anything approaching a consensus here as people have vastly differing opinions of what is and is not considered acceptable and frankly what "gaming" itself is and what makes it fun.
My opinion is my own...and I certainly not trying to force it upon anyone else...but neither will I allow anyone to tell me it is wrong.
This colors how I behave in games...who I choose to associate with in playing games....and how I run any games I have direct control over (e.g. GMing PnP role-playing campaigns).
At this point, I wouldn't personaly really classify most MMO's as "games"....more like "interactive entertainment experiences" that have some aspects of games. A "game" by definition, cannot involve the direct payment for some achievement or advantage within the game. At most, it can involve payment for skill training of the PLAYER (not the players in-game avatar/playing peices) or high quality equipment for the PLAYER to play the game with (e.g. a good quality computer, mouse and internet connection....NOT equipment belonging to the players pieces or avatar).
You used to "buy" advantages through time-invested.
Because it was the first/earliest, it is the "right" way to play.
All else is blather. We know how enormously tricky that "right" word is, particularly when it's up to the developers to balance profit motive against their game's integrity.
As players we really don't, and never did, have any say about it. Vote with your feet; it's the only meaningful vote you'll ever have.
yeah .. and despite all the ranting and whining, the market does not mind P2W, and the trend is more F2P games, and more cash shops.
Originally posted by Cod_Eye Originally posted by SoMuchMassSo am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
The ability to buy items that gives an advantage with real money.
"Pay to Win" makes no mention of items or gear, but in current times a player can get max level in a very short time; so some players think "win" means "better gear." Whereas, I maintain anything that conveys a monetized advantage (like xp potions) is pay to win.
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
You used to "buy" advantages through time-invested.
Because it was the first/earliest, it is the "right" way to play.
All else is blather. We know how enormously tricky that "right" word is, particularly when it's up to the developers to balance profit motive against their game's integrity.
As players we really don't, and never did, have any say about it. Vote with your feet; it's the only meaningful vote you'll ever have.
yeah .. and despite all the ranting and whining, the market does not mind P2W, and the trend is more F2P games, and more cash shops.
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
Im sorry. I missed the part where you said you enjoy to be beaten in PVP until you have max gear and finally reach others that spend money to win. Ofc you mean this scenario only in a purely not P2W game, right?
^ Shows rather clearly that many playerbases do not mind it at all. No matter how much they complain to the contrary.
Originally posted by killion81
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
Even discounting the "One mans trash is another mans treasure" part of your statement there is the rather clear fact that price to create such titles have done nothing but go up and the price people are paying are doing nothing but going down. How much longer do you think its going to be until we no longer get games entirely because the roi is just not there?
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
Here is the data that shows the market does mind p2p-only games.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012" .. looks like 1.8M minds very much.
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
Here is the data that shows the market does mind p2p-only games.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012" .. looks like 1.8M minds very much.
ya but does that include hybrid games. you can still play aoc, lotro, aion, swtor as a sub game. If you pay monthly sub for those games, it should still count as sub game.
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
Here is the data that shows the market does mind p2p-only games.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012" .. looks like 1.8M minds very much.
And 6.7 million that don't mind. As a comparison, Zynga, the world's leading provider of social game services (which are counted in those F2P numbers) made some $400k net income for the first quarter of 2013 while boasting:
"We are encouraged by the strong execution from our teams and the breakout hit performance of FarmVille 2, which captures the imagination of nearly 40 million players every month," said Mark Pincus, CEO and Founder, Zynga.
Now take Blizzard, who posted $334 million in net income for Subscription, licensing, and other revenues during the first quarter of 2013. I'm pretty sure Blizzard doesn't "capture the imagination of nearly 40 million players every month".
I know which position I would rather be in if I were a game developer. Good games are going to stop being made if there's no monetary incentive to do so. Looking at it from that perspective, F2P gamers are a cancer on the industry. I'd rather pay and continue to have quality online game options available to me rather than Facebook quality crap.
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
Here is the data that shows the market does mind p2p-only games.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012" .. looks like 1.8M minds very much.
ya but does that include hybrid games. you can still play aoc, lotro, aion, swtor as a sub game. If you pay monthly sub for those games, it should still count as sub game.
As I have said before is a cash shop MMO like WoW a subscription game, are F2P MMO's with a subscriptions really F2P MMO's? The truth in those figures would vary hugely depending on how you answer those questions. If the data was sub versus itemised purchases well WoW has a cash shop. It is very muddied.
All we can say is all MMO's are moving to hybrid revenue models. The old distinction of Sub and F2P is still there but becoming harder and harder to spot.
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
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
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
LOL ... you are just making things up.
And in my household 3 out of 4 play MMO. All anecdotal ... non-evidence just like yours.
Sticking head in the sand ignoring data ... and note that this company SELLs such data. Do you think i will believe a professional company or some random dude on the internet?
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
Here is the data that shows the market does mind p2p-only games.
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012" .. looks like 1.8M minds very much.
ya but does that include hybrid games. you can still play aoc, lotro, aion, swtor as a sub game. If you pay monthly sub for those games, it should still count as sub game.
As I have said before is a cash shop MMO like WoW a subscription game, are F2P MMO's with a subscriptions really F2P MMO's? The truth in those figures would vary hugely depending on how you answer those questions. If the data was sub versus itemised purchases well WoW has a cash shop. It is very muddied.
All we can say is all MMO's are moving to hybrid revenue models. The old distinction of Sub and F2P is still there but becoming harder and harder to spot.
Lets see...
SWTOR Cash shop = XP boosts, gear, items, pets, mounts, mount speed increases, access to in game activities such as PVP, Raididng, space combat, dungons, and quite a bit more. Even as a subscriber in SWTOR, you can purchase addiditonal XP boots at will.
WoW "cast shop" = mounts (that don't go faster than any in game obtained mount) and pets...thats it...thats all...
You can only make that statement if WoW offered an actual cash shop like SWTOR, STO, DDO, LOTR etc..which...it clearly does not. WoW is clearly nowhere near a "hybrid model"
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
Holy shit. You know 400 people off the top of your head?
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
Holy shit. You know 400 people off the top of your head?
he probably just made it up since no one can check. Or may be that is his friend "collection" on FB.
To me the definition of "Pay-to-Win" has always been something in an MMO that let you gain an in-game advantage. In almost all F2P/B2P MMOs you can get some of the best gear in the game with real life money, usually by converting real life money to game currency and buying epics. For example, I can gear my character in GW2 or Neverwinter in full "epics" with real life money.
I keep hearing players and developers now say that if you can get this gear in game with game currency, it isn't "Pay-to-Win". When did this become the definition become the norm?
If I can get the best gear in the game with real life money, and I can get it with in-game currency. It is still "Pay-to-Win". Because usually you can buy in-game currency with real life money.
Star Citizen and Chris Roberts recently took this approach. In Star Citizen you can buy all the ships with real life money. When people said it was "Pay-to-Win", RSI said it isn't "Pay-to-Win" because you can buy the ships in game.
So am I wrong? What is the definition of "Pay-to-Win"?
Some Free to play games make their income this way,has been like this for quite some years. It's not hard to tell if an MMO is based on this. In most cases, a person can achieve this as well, it just "takes" longer. The pay to win group want it right there and now, that is the only difference. Is it fair that someone can get gear, etc, in what would be 6 months of work for a normal player? That answer is debatable. If you do not understand the concept of a "business", then perhaps you should not be worried about what a company does. After all, you're just a consumer; you will either buy from their cash shop or you won't. It's really that simple. In all honesty, be glad someone is buying things, it helps keep some of the great games alive and does it really hurt you in anyway? It all virtual, not real(only the real life cash spent).. try to remember that.
P.S- There will always be people that have the need to be the best right off, or think that they are the best at least.. Once the normal players catch up to them, reality has a funny way of telling them that, "Hey, your power-rush has just come to an end, you best find a way to be the best again or think you are the best again". Companies cater to these types. That is factual
IMHO every MMORPG that offers anything but cosmetical items for real currency is P2W.
Thus the only non-P2W mmorpgs are either
1) P2P with purely cosmetical cash shop.
2) P2P without any microtransactions.
Personally I find even WoW P2W because it offers you "services" for real currency.
I.E Faction / Race / Server changes.
Does it really matter? So in your def .. most games are p2w. So? Are you going to avoid them all?
Personally i don't care much about the fine point of the definition since P2W seems very fair to me. Whales pays for advantages, and i get to play for free. It is quit fair for those who are willing to share the burden to subsidize your gaming to have some advantages.
IMHO every MMORPG that offers anything but cosmetical items for real currency is P2W.
Thus the only non-P2W mmorpgs are either
1) P2P with purely cosmetical cash shop.
2) P2P without any microtransactions.
Personally I find even WoW P2W because it offers you "services" for real currency.
I.E Faction / Race / Server changes.
Does it really matter? So in your def .. most games are p2w. So? Are you going to avoid them all?
Personally i don't care much about the fine point of the definition since P2W seems very fair to me. Whales pays for advantages, and i get to play for free. It is quit fair for those who are willing to share the burden to subsidize your gaming to have some advantages.
The thing is, nothing he pointed to as a "WoW P2W item" offers an advantage over anyone else lol.
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
Clearly thier data is misleading. At most they would only be capable of tracking individual accounts not individual users since without some real world ID (at the very least a credit card) they can't tie an account to an individual even losely.... so an individual that has 20 accounts would be counted as 20 users. Undoubtedly they also don't cross-corelate thier data across multiple games since they wouldn't have access to it....so if you are playing 50 different games you are counted as 50 different individual users.
They would also have to rely on the individual game companies themselves (and non-publicly traded US companies or foriegn companies with no US stock listing have zero obligation to provide data to anyone) or indirect means for gathering even rough numbers both of which methods would be subject to bias.
Finanly companies such as the one cited USALY have something other to sell then just simple data....most often CONSULTING services where they tell you how to do X. So there is always an institutional bias in the data there. You can be assured if said company or it's affiliates specializes in providing expertiese about X...... thier data will ALWAYS demonstrate how X is really, really important to do.
So one needs to take such citations with a VERY large grain of salt.
Originally posted by nariusseldon nyah nyah nyah nyah
Nari, so you then stand behind SuperData's claim that 17% of humans in the USA are playing MMOs?
Originally posted by colddog04 Holy shit. You know 400 people off the top of your head?
Yes. 200 people at my present company; another 200 at my previous company. 150+ on my facebook. Adds up quickly.
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
So now Rift is selling gear for money directly. And their argument is it can be earned in game and "wont be the best gear in the game". But you can also earn the best gear in game within the game, so what is stopping them from selling it?
The slippery slope people said wouldn't happened is already happening. And all of us are in it, whether we like it or not.
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
LOL ... you are just making things up.
And in my household 3 out of 4 play MMO. All anecdotal ... non-evidence just like yours.
Sticking head in the sand ignoring data ... and note that this company SELLs such data. Do you think i will believe a professional company or some random dude on the internet?
You just have no counter evidence.
Ok should have looked at it earlier that research is pointless. We all knew that there were more players logging on in F2P MMO's, what does it tell us that's new? It actually says you cant say that F2P is generating more money. Not only that the definistion of what is F2P and P2P is left wide open.
Another poster said I was wrong to call WoW a hybrid revenue model as it had a cash shop that was not as developed as a F2P cash shop. Having a cash shop sets you down the hybrid path, same as a F2P MMO having a subscription sets that MMO on the hybrid path. Some MMO's are more hybrid than others, but they are still hybrid.
Comments
Now your just making things up. I did not mention my enjoyment or lack of it regarding max gear or even mention pvp at all.
I stated 2 months to get a full set is nothing if I like what I'm doing. And by the end of that we both have the same power level so not p2w.
It's better to respond to the points people are actually saying, rather than making things up to fit your agenda.
OP, I generaly agree with you and my defintion pretty much matches yours.
To my mind, payment should only provide the opportunity to play the game...it shouldn't provide one with ANYTHING within the game. Things within the game should only be achieved by actions WITHIN the game... I consider anything else a form of CHEATING.
The view I hold USED to be much more prevalent among gamers. I do believe that Developers (along with a new generation of gamers) have pushed the envelope over time more and more into what is considered acceptable to charge for.
It is my opinion that while RMT has been a good thing for the INDUSTRY of gaming. It has been a horrible thing for the HOBBY of gaming.
That said, you are never going to get anything approaching a consensus here as people have vastly differing opinions of what is and is not considered acceptable and frankly what "gaming" itself is and what makes it fun.
My opinion is my own...and I certainly not trying to force it upon anyone else...but neither will I allow anyone to tell me it is wrong.
This colors how I behave in games...who I choose to associate with in playing games....and how I run any games I have direct control over (e.g. GMing PnP role-playing campaigns).
At this point, I wouldn't personaly really classify most MMO's as "games"....more like "interactive entertainment experiences" that have some aspects of games. A "game" by definition, cannot involve the direct payment for some achievement or advantage within the game. At most, it can involve payment for skill training of the PLAYER (not the players in-game avatar/playing peices) or high quality equipment for the PLAYER to play the game with (e.g. a good quality computer, mouse and internet connection....NOT equipment belonging to the players pieces or avatar).
yeah .. and despite all the ranting and whining, the market does not mind P2W, and the trend is more F2P games, and more cash shops.
"Pay to Win" makes no mention of items or gear, but in current times a player can get max level in a very short time; so some players think "win" means "better gear." Whereas, I maintain anything that conveys a monetized advantage (like xp potions) is pay to win.
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
The market doesn't mind well designed and well executed games with subscriptions either. However, yes, people will play pretty mediocre (to straight bad) games if there is no price tag attached. They won't necessarily pay for them, but they will play them.
http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win
^ Shows rather clearly that many playerbases do not mind it at all. No matter how much they complain to the contrary.
Even discounting the "One mans trash is another mans treasure" part of your statement there is the rather clear fact that price to create such titles have done nothing but go up and the price people are paying are doing nothing but going down. How much longer do you think its going to be until we no longer get games entirely because the roi is just not there?
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Here is the data that shows the market does mind p2p-only games.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/us-free-to-play-does-it-pay-to-switch/
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012" .. looks like 1.8M minds very much.
ya but does that include hybrid games. you can still play aoc, lotro, aion, swtor as a sub game. If you pay monthly sub for those games, it should still count as sub game.
And 6.7 million that don't mind. As a comparison, Zynga, the world's leading provider of social game services (which are counted in those F2P numbers) made some $400k net income for the first quarter of 2013 while boasting:
"We are encouraged by the strong execution from our teams and the breakout hit performance of FarmVille 2, which captures the imagination of nearly 40 million players every month," said Mark Pincus, CEO and Founder, Zynga.
Now take Blizzard, who posted $334 million in net income for Subscription, licensing, and other revenues during the first quarter of 2013. I'm pretty sure Blizzard doesn't "capture the imagination of nearly 40 million players every month".
I know which position I would rather be in if I were a game developer. Good games are going to stop being made if there's no monetary incentive to do so. Looking at it from that perspective, F2P gamers are a cancer on the industry. I'd rather pay and continue to have quality online game options available to me rather than Facebook quality crap.
http://investor.zynga.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=759080
http://investor.activision.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1104659-13-38868&CIK=718877
As I have said before is a cash shop MMO like WoW a subscription game, are F2P MMO's with a subscriptions really F2P MMO's? The truth in those figures would vary hugely depending on how you answer those questions. If the data was sub versus itemised purchases well WoW has a cash shop. It is very muddied.
All we can say is all MMO's are moving to hybrid revenue models. The old distinction of Sub and F2P is still there but becoming harder and harder to spot.
Nari, you started a thread to discuss data from that company. We concluded it was bullshit. It claims 1 out of every 6 persons in the USA (including infants and the elderly) are playing MMOs. I know about 400 people off the top of my head, and not one of them is playing an MMO; and I doubt their infants and grandparents are playing, either.
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
LOL ... you are just making things up.
And in my household 3 out of 4 play MMO. All anecdotal ... non-evidence just like yours.
Sticking head in the sand ignoring data ... and note that this company SELLs such data. Do you think i will believe a professional company or some random dude on the internet?
You just have no counter evidence.
Lets see...
SWTOR Cash shop = XP boosts, gear, items, pets, mounts, mount speed increases, access to in game activities such as PVP, Raididng, space combat, dungons, and quite a bit more. Even as a subscriber in SWTOR, you can purchase addiditonal XP boots at will.
WoW "cast shop" = mounts (that don't go faster than any in game obtained mount) and pets...thats it...thats all...
You can only make that statement if WoW offered an actual cash shop like SWTOR, STO, DDO, LOTR etc..which...it clearly does not. WoW is clearly nowhere near a "hybrid model"
Holy shit. You know 400 people off the top of your head?
IMHO every MMORPG that offers anything but cosmetical items for real currency is P2W.
Thus the only non-P2W mmorpgs are either
1) P2P with purely cosmetical cash shop.
2) P2P without any microtransactions.
Personally I find even WoW P2W because it offers you "services" for real currency.
I.E Faction / Race / Server changes.
Appearance changes, faction changes etc are P2W?...Did I miss something?
Oh...I see what you did there....WoW has nothing even close to resembling P2W, so you stretch the meaning into ungodly terms...gotchya...
he probably just made it up since no one can check. Or may be that is his friend "collection" on FB.
Some Free to play games make their income this way,has been like this for quite some years. It's not hard to tell if an MMO is based on this. In most cases, a person can achieve this as well, it just "takes" longer. The pay to win group want it right there and now, that is the only difference. Is it fair that someone can get gear, etc, in what would be 6 months of work for a normal player? That answer is debatable. If you do not understand the concept of a "business", then perhaps you should not be worried about what a company does. After all, you're just a consumer; you will either buy from their cash shop or you won't. It's really that simple. In all honesty, be glad someone is buying things, it helps keep some of the great games alive and does it really hurt you in anyway? It all virtual, not real(only the real life cash spent).. try to remember that.
P.S- There will always be people that have the need to be the best right off, or think that they are the best at least.. Once the normal players catch up to them, reality has a funny way of telling them that, "Hey, your power-rush has just come to an end, you best find a way to be the best again or think you are the best again". Companies cater to these types. That is factual
Does it really matter? So in your def .. most games are p2w. So? Are you going to avoid them all?
Personally i don't care much about the fine point of the definition since P2W seems very fair to me. Whales pays for advantages, and i get to play for free. It is quit fair for those who are willing to share the burden to subsidize your gaming to have some advantages.
The thing is, nothing he pointed to as a "WoW P2W item" offers an advantage over anyone else lol.
Clearly thier data is misleading. At most they would only be capable of tracking individual accounts not individual users since without some real world ID (at the very least a credit card) they can't tie an account to an individual even losely.... so an individual that has 20 accounts would be counted as 20 users. Undoubtedly they also don't cross-corelate thier data across multiple games since they wouldn't have access to it....so if you are playing 50 different games you are counted as 50 different individual users.
They would also have to rely on the individual game companies themselves (and non-publicly traded US companies or foriegn companies with no US stock listing have zero obligation to provide data to anyone) or indirect means for gathering even rough numbers both of which methods would be subject to bias.
Finanly companies such as the one cited USALY have something other to sell then just simple data....most often CONSULTING services where they tell you how to do X. So there is always an institutional bias in the data there. You can be assured if said company or it's affiliates specializes in providing expertiese about X...... thier data will ALWAYS demonstrate how X is really, really important to do.
So one needs to take such citations with a VERY large grain of salt.
Nari, so you then stand behind SuperData's claim that 17% of humans in the USA are playing MMOs?
Yes. 200 people at my present company; another 200 at my previous company. 150+ on my facebook. Adds up quickly.
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
So now Rift is selling gear for money directly. And their argument is it can be earned in game and "wont be the best gear in the game". But you can also earn the best gear in game within the game, so what is stopping them from selling it?
The slippery slope people said wouldn't happened is already happening. And all of us are in it, whether we like it or not.
Ok should have looked at it earlier that research is pointless. We all knew that there were more players logging on in F2P MMO's, what does it tell us that's new? It actually says you cant say that F2P is generating more money. Not only that the definistion of what is F2P and P2P is left wide open.
Another poster said I was wrong to call WoW a hybrid revenue model as it had a cash shop that was not as developed as a F2P cash shop. Having a cash shop sets you down the hybrid path, same as a F2P MMO having a subscription sets that MMO on the hybrid path. Some MMO's are more hybrid than others, but they are still hybrid.