Chronciles of Elyria - Not Pay to Win

1246710

Comments

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,744
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    By the posts this community do think its P2W. There are many forms of P2W both PvP and PvE, games where you can buy land in some way seem rather prone to land baron P2W.

    Crowd funding has an insidious side which makes those who have put money in want the game to be a success and start advocating it without realising how they were putting their rationality on hold. But we have seen this all before with pre-ordered games, once bought you have a vested interest in the game being decent. I don't know about the OP, but that's bound to effect the official forums.
    This is why using terms with no common agreed upon definition is a bad way to frame the argument. If we stopped trying to distill the issue down to a bandwagon slogan then arguing against it would be a lot more difficult.

    It's hard to argue "P2W" when it's subjective. It's not hard to argue the horrible effects of buying an advantage in PvP and letting players play GM. There is no more yes/no finger pointing when someone has to answer why they think having those in game is a good idea. They actually have to answer or lose the argument. 

    Yeah, but the game is telling people this upfront, right? So don't back it! Run! Run far away!!! There seems to be a LOT more people talking about how bad these mechanics are than actually ensuring that they don't get made (by not backing them). I mean, shit! CU was in jeopardy of not making their mark on their KS campaign and they, I think, would be considered as non-P2W as they come, no? Reminds me of...



    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,540
    Forget about the finer points of semantics and rationalisation and dancing around the definition of a definition...

    The lead developer of CoE has made it perfectly clear that he is willing to treat big spenders "differently". If THAT doesn't worry you, you'll have nothing to fear in the future of CoE, lol

    OTOH, if you're a wealthy gamer, why not send Jeromy Walsh a PM ? I'm sure he'd be happy to create a special package just for you ! Nobody needs to know the details... ;)
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,744
    Forget about the finer points of semantics and rationalisation and dancing around the definition of a definition...

    The lead developer of CoE has made it perfectly clear that he is willing to treat big spenders "differently". If THAT doesn't worry you, you'll have nothing to fear in the future of CoE, lol

    OTOH, if you're a wealthy gamer, why not send Jeromy Walsh a PM ? I'm sure he'd be happy to create a special package just for you ! Nobody needs to know the details... ;)

    Yup, you're probably right. However, if we subscribe to this theory then Mike Morhaime probably has the most powerful character in WoW :) 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • AzothAzoth montreal, QCMember UncommonPosts: 833
    The game will probably be P2W. The important question is, will it affect me. Every game I ever played as always had some way of p2w, be it from devs or from the farmers cartel.

    I never liked mmorpg pvp because most of the time it's an unbalanced piece of crap, can be levels, skills, or gear that makes you start at a disadvantage. So I stick to FPS games for my pvp fix, and mmorpg for pve. It's a lot easier to not care about p2w stuff if you only pve.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHMember RarePosts: 8,676
    Kind of hilarious reading all these posts.  The game is at least 2 years out if not more.  Perhaps you should wait for at least an alpha test before you make yourself look silly with all this rampant speculation.
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,162
    Ozmodan said:
    Kind of hilarious reading all these posts.  The game is at least 2 years out if not more.  Perhaps you should wait for at least an alpha test before you make yourself look silly with all this rampant speculation.
    This thread is an answer to Caspian's very special statement.

    Nothing silly about guessing what kind of leader he will be after we got this insight.
  • ghaianaghaiana GoudaMember UncommonPosts: 106
    By now you have screaming little boys in every MMO that call the MMO pay to win, since most MMO's have cash stores. It's just plain jealousy in most cases, because mom won't give them a cc. I am a mom, I know how that works..
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,540
    ghaiana said:
    By now you have screaming little boys in every MMO that call the MMO pay to win, since most MMO's have cash stores. It's just plain jealousy in most cases, because mom won't give them a cc. I am a mom, I know how that works..
    The age of the person swiping the card is irrelevant. What they're buying with that swipe is not.

    P2W is real.
  • RelampagoRelampago Brooklyn, NYMember UncommonPosts: 272
    Before you are born in 1216 in England you can pay to be Henry III or pay regular price to be a peasant.

    Before you are born in 1866 you can pay to be born into the mainstream or pay basic entry to be born as african american.

    Let me know how that works out for you...
  • XodicXodic RealityMember RarePosts: 672
    edited December 2016
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    By the posts this community do think its P2W. There are many forms of P2W both PvP and PvE, games where you can buy land in some way seem rather prone to land baron P2W.

    Crowd funding has an insidious side which makes those who have put money in want the game to be a success and start advocating it without realising how they were putting their rationality on hold. But we have seen this all before with pre-ordered games, once bought you have a vested interest in the game being decent. I don't know about the OP, but that's bound to effect the official forums.
    This is why using terms with no common agreed upon definition is a bad way to frame the argument. If we stopped trying to distill the issue down to a bandwagon slogan then arguing against it would be a lot more difficult.

    It's hard to argue "P2W" when it's subjective. It's not hard to argue the horrible effects of buying an advantage in PvP and letting players play GM. There is no more yes/no finger pointing when someone has to answer why they think having those in game is a good idea. They actually have to answer or lose the argument. 
    The definition and meaning are clear to everyone. People simply choose to tighten the buckle on their horse blinders in a last ditch attempt to convince themselves that the genre is not devolving.

    Definition of win

    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune
    1:b :  to obtain by work : earn <striving to win a living from the sterile soil>

    5:  to reach by expenditure of effort

    A game is built to be played, playing the game is the effort. Anything you can purchase to bypass effort within the game is inherently "Pay to Win".

    You played the game and earned a castle - you played to win the castle.
    You bought a castle in the cash shop - you paid to win the castle.
    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune

    It's not subjective.
    Post edited by Xodic on
  • ste2000ste2000 londonMember EpicPosts: 6,194
    Xodic said:

    A game is built to be played, playing the game is the effort. Anything you can purchase to bypass effort within the game is inherently "Pay to Win".

    You played the game and earned a castle - you played to win the castle.
    You bought a castle in the cash shop - you paid to win the castle.

    That's the way I think.
    Games needs to be played, I don't understand why people pay to skip content.
    Games are meant to pass the time, are time sinks.
    If you don't have time, don't play games.

  • fodell54fodell54 Member RarePosts: 859
    edited December 2016
    simon155 said:
    fodell54 said:
    It's not P2W it's Pay to GM.
    Epic fail reading. You should frame this and hang in on the wall.

    When you're done follow the link and try to read it this time.
    Nah I didn't read it at all I just commented. So in the end it's not a fail because I don't care what you said or what you have to say. All I cared about was commenting.

    This game is going to be a giant turd no matter how you spin it. You don't even need to look at a cash shop or donator benefits. Just look at how the developers speak to the community. Seriously, just go read the official forums and see what the developers think about you just for posting on this site.

    Really it's just common sense but whatever jump on that hype wagon. However, thanks for you input it was greatly appreciate.
    Post edited by fodell54 on
  • winghaven1winghaven1 HafnarfjörðurMember RarePosts: 551
    edited December 2016
    When you need to dedicate an entire forum post trying to prove how a game is not P2W then the game itself is on very fishy ground. You can justify it all you want but you cannot deny there are some powerful benefits being handed to big donators that will have a big impact come launch.

    That's all I got to say on the matter.
    Post edited by winghaven1 on
  • carotidcarotid Member UncommonPosts: 425
    Sad to see these people so desperate for justice and equality mean while this same people support Capitalism that exploits workers to fullest even in First world not mentioning Second and Third world.


    Take your politics and shove them up your you know what.  This is a gaming forum.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,194
    edited December 2016
    fodell54 said:

    Seriously, just go read the official forums and see what the developers think about you just for posting on this site. 
    Actually i think he originally thought his followers would come here and spread the word, that's why he linked my other thread in one of his posts (when he closed down discussion about one guy buying multiple kingdoms [the $40,000 guy]).  Unfortunately for him, there are a lot of rationally skeptical people here who can see past the spin.


    Post edited by Slapshot1188 on

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • vernesvernes EmmenMember UncommonPosts: 79
    edited December 2016
    how do I delete?
    Post edited by vernes on
  • ste2000ste2000 londonMember EpicPosts: 6,194
    Actually i think he originally thought his followers would come here and spread the word, that's why he linked my other thread in one of his posts (when he closed down discussion about one guy buying multiple kingdoms [the $40,000 guy]).  Unfortunately for him, there are a lot of rationally skeptical people here who can see past the spin.

    httpsmediatenorcoimages44b56a3ffc7de9f23b2fb461165e9d62raw

  • jonp200jonp200 Veazie, MEMember UncommonPosts: 315
    edited December 2016
    So everyone starts the game in the same state.... Let's say all wearing a speedo and carrying a club because I just like that image... No, wait?  People can pay real money to be dressed in furs and have an estate, titles and lands, and start way ahead of the other idiots wearing only speedos and carrying clubs?  How is that not pay to win?  Oh.. one of the guys in the speedos can come at me with the club in my big castle and take it away.?  Oh sure... Come at me brah!  That's fair... Not pay to win at all.... I see.  I had it all wrong.. Clearly a level playing field.
    Post edited by jonp200 on

    Seaspite
    Playing ESO on my X-Box


  • PapasmervPapasmerv Brooklyn, NYMember UncommonPosts: 62
    I'm just starting to read up on this title and boy does this one look scary.  So many of the systems sound amazing and then I get to the monetization and see that to be the king costs $10K USD.  Reeeeely???

    And then I read arguments from people who are trying to convince the community it's not a game where spending more gets you more in-game power and greater likelihood of dominating your enemies.  Let's be frank, those that support the P2W monetization approach always argue that P2W is subjective.  It's not.  Your game is P2W if your game systems support PvP in any form (combat/strategy) and paying money provides you an advantage over other players.   It's really pretty simple.  But this particular game has an excessive P2W model in that it provides ranks up to King/Queen which cost $10K to obtain.

    I say scary, because the word psychotic comes to mind when the devs and backers argue that this is an equitable monetization approach.

    Listen,  I don't care if you want to go to Vegas and blow $10K on craps or spend your whole paycheck playing the lottery.  That's your business and I don't care.  But don't come to MMORPG.COM and argue that a video game in the RPG genre isn't P2W when your stature in the game at launch is predicated on how much you spend.  It doesn't matter whether that stature can be lost.  You paid to obtain an advantage over other players at launch and that's P2W.

    I strongly suggest the community NOT back this title and send a message to Soulbound Studios that this isn't the type of game the MMORPG community will support.  And if they want to continue to build a P2W title like this, then they will severely cripple their mass appeal to this community.

    My suggestion to Soulbound Studios is to take your Influence System and rework it to be an in-game, after launch system.  Rather than recruiting players or posting on the forums, influence should be gained through the completion of in-game activities.  And it's ok if the entire game world starts off as peasants.  Let the people who PLAY your game determine who will become royalty, as opposed to who can invest/spend the most in your cash shop and board warrior before the game launches.

    Or follow your vision which to me is purely a cash grab and I wish you best of luck.
    What every dev/pub should stand behind: "We're committed to creating a fair playing field for all players. You cannot gain gameplay advantage by spending real money in [INSERT GAME NAME]."
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,811
    edited February 26
    Papasmerv said:
    I'm just starting to read up on this title and boy does this one look scary.  So many of the systems sound amazing and then I get to the monetization and see that to be the king costs $10K USD.  Reeeeely???

    And then I read arguments from people who are trying to convince the community it's not a game where spending more gets you more in-game power and greater likelihood of dominating your enemies.  Let's be frank, those that support the P2W monetization approach always argue that P2W is subjective.  It's not.  Your game is P2W if your game systems support PvP in any form (combat/strategy) and paying money provides you an advantage over other players.   It's really pretty simple.  But this particular game has an excessive P2W model in that it provides ranks up to King/Queen which cost $10K to obtain.

    I say scary, because the word psychotic comes to mind when the devs and backers argue that this is an equitable monetization approach.

    Listen,  I don't care if you want to go to Vegas and blow $10K on craps or spend your whole paycheck playing the lottery.  That's your business and I don't care.  But don't come to MMORPG.COM and argue that a video game in the RPG genre isn't P2W when your stature in the game at launch is predicated on how much you spend.  It doesn't matter whether that stature can be lost.  You paid to obtain an advantage over other players at launch and that's P2W.

    I strongly suggest the community NOT back this title and send a message to Soulbound Studios that this isn't the type of game the MMORPG community will support.  And if they want to continue to build a P2W title like this, then they will severely cripple their mass appeal to this community.

    My suggestion to Soulbound Studios is to take your Influence System and rework it to be an in-game, after launch system.  Rather than recruiting players or posting on the forums, influence should be gained through the completion of in-game activities.  And it's ok if the entire game world starts off as peasants.  Let the people who PLAY your game determine who will become royalty, as opposed to who can invest/spend the most in your cash shop and board warrior before the game launches.

    Or follow your vision which to me is purely a cash grab and I wish you best of luck.
    If everyone in the game starts off as peasants, the game won't be as interesting as the approach they're taking.  

    You present a reasoned perspective but I disagree with your conclusions.
    Post edited by SedrynTyros on
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,001
    Xodic said:
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    By the posts this community do think its P2W. There are many forms of P2W both PvP and PvE, games where you can buy land in some way seem rather prone to land baron P2W.

    Crowd funding has an insidious side which makes those who have put money in want the game to be a success and start advocating it without realising how they were putting their rationality on hold. But we have seen this all before with pre-ordered games, once bought you have a vested interest in the game being decent. I don't know about the OP, but that's bound to effect the official forums.
    This is why using terms with no common agreed upon definition is a bad way to frame the argument. If we stopped trying to distill the issue down to a bandwagon slogan then arguing against it would be a lot more difficult.

    It's hard to argue "P2W" when it's subjective. It's not hard to argue the horrible effects of buying an advantage in PvP and letting players play GM. There is no more yes/no finger pointing when someone has to answer why they think having those in game is a good idea. They actually have to answer or lose the argument. 
    The definition and meaning are clear to everyone. People simply choose to tighten the buckle on their horse blinders in a last ditch attempt to convince themselves that the genre is not devolving.

    Definition of win

    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune
    1:b :  to obtain by work : earn <striving to win a living from the sterile soil>

    5:  to reach by expenditure of effort

    A game is built to be played, playing the game is the effort. Anything you can purchase to bypass effort within the game is inherently "Pay to Win".

    You played the game and earned a castle - you played to win the castle.
    You bought a castle in the cash shop - you paid to win the castle.
    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune

    It's not subjective.
    This post should be stickied as the definition of P2W.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    Pay to win ????
    This game isn't even pay to play at the moment.  ..... and probably never will be.
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,811
    Asm0deus said:
    Xodic said:
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    By the posts this community do think its P2W. There are many forms of P2W both PvP and PvE, games where you can buy land in some way seem rather prone to land baron P2W.

    Crowd funding has an insidious side which makes those who have put money in want the game to be a success and start advocating it without realising how they were putting their rationality on hold. But we have seen this all before with pre-ordered games, once bought you have a vested interest in the game being decent. I don't know about the OP, but that's bound to effect the official forums.
    This is why using terms with no common agreed upon definition is a bad way to frame the argument. If we stopped trying to distill the issue down to a bandwagon slogan then arguing against it would be a lot more difficult.

    It's hard to argue "P2W" when it's subjective. It's not hard to argue the horrible effects of buying an advantage in PvP and letting players play GM. There is no more yes/no finger pointing when someone has to answer why they think having those in game is a good idea. They actually have to answer or lose the argument. 
    The definition and meaning are clear to everyone. People simply choose to tighten the buckle on their horse blinders in a last ditch attempt to convince themselves that the genre is not devolving.

    Definition of win

    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune
    1:b :  to obtain by work : earn <striving to win a living from the sterile soil>

    5:  to reach by expenditure of effort

    A game is built to be played, playing the game is the effort. Anything you can purchase to bypass effort within the game is inherently "Pay to Win".

    You played the game and earned a castle - you played to win the castle.
    You bought a castle in the cash shop - you paid to win the castle.
    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune

    It's not subjective.
    This post should be stickied as the definition of P2W.
    Nah.  It's not that simple.  "Winning" in a virtual world RPG isn't necessarily who owns a castle or who plows fields on a farm.  It's not about who has the biggest dick and whether or not they paid real money for it.  If that's what it's about for you, then this isn't your game.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,001
    edited February 26
    Pay to win ????
    This game isn't even pay to play at the moment.  ..... and probably never will be.
    You have a point...unless they sell more p2w to make it come true!!!!

    lmao

    I swear though the more I read in the games own forum the more they remind me of the fail pathfinder online community.
    Post edited by Asm0deus on

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • RhoklawRhoklaw Ft. Bliss, TXMember EpicPosts: 5,164
    There are very few MMOs that even require a debate on whether it is P2W. Most of those are strictly PvE games. CoE is far from PvE and is focused more around PvP, but let's say it's equal PvE and PvP, it doesn't really matter. Any time you incorporate PvP and real life purchased advantages in a game, whether pre launch or post launch, the game is P2W. If you think some guy bought $40k worth of land and titles knowing full well he had zero advantage over someone who spent nothing, you'd be daft to believe that nonsense. Those titles give a clear advantage in this game, not to mention the land ownership.

    CoE whether you want to believe it or not, IS a P2W game.

Sign In or Register to comment.