Chronciles of Elyria - Not Pay to Win

1235710

Comments

  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,795
    edited February 26
    Rhoklaw said:
    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.
    Advantage for what?  Winning what exactly?  Are there leaderboards?  Are there guild vs guild rankings?  Is there a PvP season where one person comes out on top?  What do they win?

    I think people are so accustomed to the shallow MMOs we've been fed for the past 15 years that their minds aren't able to distinguish this type of game from the many other MMOs that are about who is the highest rank at XYZ.  But I don't see this as that type of game.  The design philosophy is that of a virtual world.

    If you're playing a PvP game that has winners and losers, like Hearthstone or League of Legends, then Pay-2-Win is an objective stance that can be debated on agreed upon rules.  But in a virtual world where your characters have a fixed life span before permadeath?  Where all of your assets can be taken by other players?  It's just not the same.  I can understand why some people feel that it is the same, but it really isn't.
    Post edited by SedrynTyros on
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 5,691
    Every games says it's not pay to win.  Players can buy fleets of ships or start a game owning land that will take other players months to acquire and during those months the player with the land has expanded his holdings and making a killing in taxes.  But that's ok because he knows he can lose it all and his 10k will be a memory.  

    Can't the assets be passed on down the line to your children or your next soul or is it like a survival game, once you die all the stuff you bought  and own with that 5 or 10K dies with you?

    "Change is the only constant."

  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,725
    " In your bog standard MMO"

    What is "bog standard"?  I never heard that phrase before but I like it.

    As for your arguments, I'm not sure but I think you can pass down advantages and titles to alts before you die.  So the concept that nothing is permanent is not an absolute.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember RarePosts: 2,500
    edited February 26
    " In your bog standard MMO"

    What is "bog standard"?  I never heard that phrase before but I like it.

    As for your arguments, I'm not sure but I think you can pass down advantages and titles to alts before you die.  So the concept that nothing is permanent is not an absolute.
    It means 'run of the mill' or 'same as every other'.

    I'm guessing the origin comes from a time when companies would sell peat (from peat bogs) with each company claiming their peat was better than the competition's, but in reality all the peat was virtually the same standard.



    Post edited by rpmcmurphy on
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    " In your bog standard MMO"

    What is "bog standard"?  I never heard that phrase before but I like it.

    As for your arguments, I'm not sure but I think you can pass down advantages and titles to alts before you die.  So the concept that nothing is permanent is not an absolute.
    It means 'run of the mill' or 'same as every other'.

    I'm guessing the origin comes from a time when companies would sell peat (from peat bogs) with each company claiming their peat was better than the competition's, but in reality all the peat was virtually the same standard.
    Nope nothing to do with peat bogs. The expression is not that old (it dates from the 1960's). It may have something to do with public toilets (bogs) and the toilet paper they used, but the reality is that no one knows.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember RarePosts: 2,500
    " In your bog standard MMO"

    What is "bog standard"?  I never heard that phrase before but I like it.

    As for your arguments, I'm not sure but I think you can pass down advantages and titles to alts before you die.  So the concept that nothing is permanent is not an absolute.
    It means 'run of the mill' or 'same as every other'.

    I'm guessing the origin comes from a time when companies would sell peat (from peat bogs) with each company claiming their peat was better than the competition's, but in reality all the peat was virtually the same standard.
    Nope nothing to do with peat bogs. The expression is not that old (it dates from the 1960's). It may have something to do with public toilets (bogs) and the toilet paper they used, but the reality is that no one knows.

    Well there's no proof it doesn't have anything to do with peats bogs. It wouldn't need to be old because peat was very popular all the way through into the 2000's. 
    I would say it sounds more logical than something to do with toilets or the box-standard option that gets propositioned.

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Ft. Bliss, TXMember EpicPosts: 5,155
    Rhoklaw said:
    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.
    Advantage for what?  Winning what exactly?  Are there leaderboards?  Are there guild vs guild rankings?  Is there a PvP season where one person comes out on top?  What do they win?

    I think people are so accustomed to the shallow MMOs we've been fed for the past 15 years that their minds aren't able to distinguish this type of game from the many other MMOs that are about who is the highest rank at XYZ.  But I don't see this as that type of game.  The design philosophy is that of a virtual world.

    If you're playing a PvP game that has winners and losers, like Hearthstone or League of Legends, then Pay-2-Win is an objective stance that can be debated on agreed upon rules.  But in a virtual world where your characters have a fixed life span before permadeath?  Where all of your assets can be taken by other players?  It's just not the same.  I can understand why some people feel that it is the same, but it really isn't.
    The P2W reference was coined to mean a lot of things, not strictly P2W. In this case, much like Ste2000 pointed out in the first page of this thread. P2W represents the P2Advantage over others. You are correct, P2W doesn't exist in MMOs, but P2Advantage does which for all we know, could end up being a permanent advantage if handled properly. It's design philosophies like this that have deprived a lot of players from enjoying what could have been a masterpiece.

    ArcheAge is probably the worst case of P2W doing more harm then good in terms of financial gain for the developer. Clearly P2W is used when developers don't trust in their work as a developer. It's a tactic often referred to as a cash cow approach to game design. You try to milk your players for as much as you can before they find out what has happened. If your game is good, which in my opinion, ArcheAge could of been, you don't need P2W monetization. CoE on the other hand is using P2W to finance the development. So they basically sold their soul to the devil before the game has even launched. Star Citizen isn't far behind on this gimmick of acquiring capital in order to fund their project. It's just a really piss poor approach to financing a game. Selling advantages in exchange for money to finish a game is just a dishonorable thing in my opinion.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,768
    According to discussions on this site, every single game out there is P2W.

    Absurd, meaningless term used as derogatory term for something one does not like.

    Who cares about reason though....
  • NildenNilden Canada, NBMember RarePosts: 2,158
    Gdemami said:
    According to discussions on this site, every single game out there is P2W.

    Absurd, meaningless term used as derogatory term for something one does not like.

    Who cares about reason though....
    Pay 10k to be king.

    Who cares about blatantly obvious reasons though...

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer


  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,768
    edited February 26
    Nilden said:
    Pay 10k to be king.

    Who cares about blatantly obvious reasons though...
    Thanks for demonstrating my point. Carry on with your moot ranting...
    Post edited by Gdemami on
  • majimaji CologneMember UncommonPosts: 2,084
    To me, p2w means that you pay money to get an advantage, any advantage. The only game I know that has a cash shop and is not p2w is DOTA2, as nothing you can buy there has any impact on the gameplay. 

    Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)

    Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)

  • NildenNilden Canada, NBMember RarePosts: 2,158
    Gdemami said:
    Nilden said:
    Pay 10k to be king.

    Who cares about blatantly obvious reasons though...
    Thanks for demonstrating my point. Carry on with your moot ranting...
    Sorry maybe I was not clear enough.

    Paying 10 grand to be king is a very clear reason to call this game Pay 2 Win.

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer


  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,155
    Nilden said:
    Gdemami said:
    According to discussions on this site, every single game out there is P2W.

    Absurd, meaningless term used as derogatory term for something one does not like.

    Who cares about reason though....
    Pay 10k to be king.

    Who cares about blatantly obvious reasons though...
    It's another reason why I wouldn't play this game even if it was to actually release with some years of delay.

    Ask yourself:
    Do you want to play with people who deny that paying 10.000$ to become king is pay to win?
  • PapasmervPapasmerv Brooklyn, NYMember UncommonPosts: 62
    edited February 26
    Gdemami said:
    According to discussions on this site, every single game out there is P2W.

    Absurd, meaningless term used as derogatory term for something one does not like.

    Who cares about reason though....

    Oh so the top AAA titles are all P2W?  WoW, ESO, FFXIV and Guild wars are all P2W?  I look forward to your argument on that point.

    And no it's not absurd or meaningless.  It's not derogatory any more than saying a title is B2P, P2P or FTP.

    Some people don't like the P2P sub models, others don't like FTP games with their microtransactions and still others don't like P2W games.  It's not complicated.

    The problem is that games in the B2P, P2P, FTP space won't argue about what they are.  So there is no argument to be had.  The P2W games will tell you they aren't pay to win while they sell in game positions like King/queen, items that provide advantage in PvP and more.  And thus the arguments goes on.  IF the P2W devs and players would just admit that they all want a game that allows people to spend more money for more advantages/opportunities; things would change over time.  I know people who routinely KS support and play these games:  AA, BDO, RevO and now CoE.  That's fine and there very well be a market with enough whales to support the games developed.  Just be transparent about your monetiztion model and if you have P2W elements either for a pre-launch set-up or post-launch in a cash shop, be up front and open about it.  This way those of us to want to P2P can stay away from P2W titles much as someone who doesn't like PvP sticks to PvE titles.
    Post edited by Papasmerv on
    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]."
  • jircrisjircris bakersfield, CAMember UncommonPosts: 560
    My thoughts are that it is CLEARLY P2W for the following reasons:


    1. Buy yourself up to a kingship (or multiple kingships in at least 1 case of a guy who spent 40k)
    2. Buy yourself a 3 month no wipe head start in a PvP territory control game with looting
    3. Use real money to buy IP
    4. Use IP to buy items such as:
    • land
    • buildings
    • resources (both common and uncommon)
    • mounts
    • siege weapons

    Feel free to have a different opinion but to me this is clearly one of the most over the top P2W games I have seen.

    normally people have no clue what P2W is but you are really spot on lol.

    free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!

    Click here for trove referral, bonuses to both!

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHMember RarePosts: 8,665
    This will be the new norm for MMO's.  No one wants to commit to fund them so they have to present a pretty package so that the whales invest heavily.  The funny thing is, the whales think they are getting x features when in reality they are getting x-y and y will be a significant amount of the proposed features.  
  • alivenaliven SzczytnoMember UncommonPosts: 264
    maji said:
    To me, p2w means that you pay money to get an advantage, any advantage. The only game I know that has a cash shop and is not p2w is DOTA2, as nothing you can buy there has any impact on the gameplay. 
    Stop playing shit games then. It is really hard to find p2w games unless you swim in filth which is "pvp mmo", "asian grinders" etc. 
  • HeraseHerase LondonMember RarePosts: 867
    Bloody hell. Imho just remove any and all paid nonsense from games. Period.

    Rubs me the wrong way all this, "Well it depends on you definition"  or "Well to me P2W means"

    None of that should mater, no one should be paying real life money to progress, skip or anything in a game.

    You should just PLAY the game, that's it. If I had the power to make that a rule that every game dev had to follow I would.
    Nilden
  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaMember EpicPosts: 12,954
    Well op,using your criteria and of misinterpret....

    First of all we don't know anything for fact because a lot of stuff relates to other stuff in game and we simply don't know the result.
    Example dying and i said this from day 1,what if it is beneficial to die on purpose?It sort of sounds like it might be,could  be,this is where the developer is not telling us all and there really is nothing to misinterpret only conjecture.

    I sort of tossed this game aside because of my previous research as there  most certainly were perks to those PAYING money to the developer.No we cannot use the term "investment" because there is no such thing,just free money handouts or PAY to win.
    Ask yourself OP WHY anyone would handout free money ,unless there was something in it for themselves?

    Even if an Early access is considered 100% cosmetic or perks outside the game,you need to remember that getting in BEFORE others and learning the entire game before anyone else does have it perks and should be considered p2w.

    I should make note that i am comparing my p2w standards to a very good quality game design,some games are so badly designed,i couldn't care less what they do because i would never consider playing them.In case you don't follow,i will explain a few....auction houses/economy/boss drops.I hope i don't need to go into detail to explain those because they should be very obvious the p2w behind them.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 120
    Why did this even turn into an argument based entirely around semantics? That you can lose an advantage, item, station etc. through normal gameplay is not an argument for this not being a P2W game, as that applies to all things in the proposed design of this game regardless of the way they were obtained. And generally obtaining all of those things is the goal of playing it, and if you can obtain those things and accomplish those goals outside of gameplay for real life dollars than that is P2W, period. It isnt a complicated narrative to follow.

    The arguments here are a total misrepresentation of the issues people have with this practice and cant be treated seriously. It's like the militant feminist who says 'look up feminism in a dictionary, it means equality for the sexes' when people take issue with the fact that they go on massive men hating rants. You can't use the text book definition of something to excuse poor behaviour anymore than you can use the argument that you can't win at MMORPG's to argue there is no such thing as P2W. That's just being deliberately infantile.
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,891
    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.
    I don't expect anyone to agree on a definitive P2W usage since people misuse the term to suit their own arguments, but the definition @Xodic put forward is pretty damn good broad though it might be.

    It puts the emphasis where it should be: did you achieve or obtain whatever it is by a) playing the game or by b) buying something with RL cash to bypass the game play?

    To a lesser or greater degree "b" is always something that undermines game play and promotes bad, inconvenient game design simply to sell you the inconvenience relief.


    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,795
    Iselin said:
    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.
    I don't expect anyone to agree on a definitive P2W usage since people misuse the term to suit their own arguments, but the definition @Xodic put forward is pretty damn good broad though it might be.

    It puts the emphasis where it should be: did you achieve or obtain whatever it is by a) playing the game or by b) buying something with RL cash to bypass the game play?

    To a lesser or greater degree "b" is always something that undermines game play and promotes bad, inconvenient game design simply to sell you the inconvenience relief.


    I don't disagree with your premise but when I look at Chronicles of Elyria ... I think the way they are setting up the Kingdoms isn't a bad approach.  I understand that it will deter a lot of people who want to start on a level playing field, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as I don't think this would be their cup of tea anyway.
  • PapasmervPapasmerv Brooklyn, NYMember UncommonPosts: 62
    Iselin said:
    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.
    I don't expect anyone to agree on a definitive P2W usage since people misuse the term to suit their own arguments, but the definition @Xodic put forward is pretty damn good broad though it might be.

    It puts the emphasis where it should be: did you achieve or obtain whatever it is by a) playing the game or by b) buying something with RL cash to bypass the game play?

    To a lesser or greater degree "b" is always something that undermines game play and promotes bad, inconvenient game design simply to sell you the inconvenience relief.


    I don't disagree with your premise but when I look at Chronicles of Elyria ... I think the way they are setting up the Kingdoms isn't a bad approach.  I understand that it will deter a lot of people who want to start on a level playing field, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as I don't think this would be their cup of tea anyway.
    To each his own.  As to whether or not CoE has a good P2W monetization approach, I can't comment as I don't support those type of games.

    I just expect the opinions expressed in posts like this to be reflected in the Hype Meter here on MMORPG.com.  Not everyone reads the forums and they will see something in the top 10 list and make assumptions about the type of game it is.
    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]."
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Ft. Bliss, TXMember EpicPosts: 5,155
    @Gdemami You know what's funny. When I typed in your name in order to reference you directly, you know what popped up right under your name? GdemamiTroll. It's funny because that is exactly what I was going to ask you, is if that is your online profession. I know you don't care, trolls never do. You are also the only member on these forums I know of that goes out of their way to use LOL votes in an attempt to promote your trollish antics. All I can say is, no one ever cares what you say anymore. You're a known instigator and a known troll. Why you don't just stay quiet and keep hitting your LOL's is beyond me. I don't mind people who debate, but your arguments are just horrible. So horrible I can't tell if you are serious or just being a troll.

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    " In your bog standard MMO"

    What is "bog standard"?  I never heard that phrase before but I like it.

    As for your arguments, I'm not sure but I think you can pass down advantages and titles to alts before you die.  So the concept that nothing is permanent is not an absolute.
    It means 'run of the mill' or 'same as every other'.

    I'm guessing the origin comes from a time when companies would sell peat (from peat bogs) with each company claiming their peat was better than the competition's, but in reality all the peat was virtually the same standard.
    Nope nothing to do with peat bogs. The expression is not that old (it dates from the 1960's). It may have something to do with public toilets (bogs) and the toilet paper they used, but the reality is that no one knows.

    Well there's no proof it doesn't have anything to do with peats bogs. It wouldn't need to be old because peat was very popular all the way through into the 2000's. 
    I would say it sounds more logical than something to do with toilets or the box-standard option that gets propositioned.

    Logic from a Dubliner?
    The thing about assertions like 'it has to do with peat bogs' is that it is up to you to prove the link not up to others to disprove it. As the expression seems to have originated in Australia and England at about the same time (the 1960's) and in an urban setting the idea of something to do with peat bogs seems to be silly. Particularly as the use of th word bogs for non-domestic toilets was commonplace in Australia and England in the 1960's while references to peat bogs were negligible.
Sign In or Register to comment.