Chronciles of Elyria - Not Pay to Win

145679

Comments

  • TermiiTermii Member CommonPosts: 6
    edited March 13
    7-Perhaps that fanboism is preventing you from seeing things clearly, and the definition of p2w varies from person to person, but on this case most if not all agree that CoE is going heavy on the p2w.
    Thats 100% True. I am a fanboy but also an achiever, so beeing able to buy noble titles made me erase CoE from my list for half a year.

    The reason why it is on my list now is this:
    -You dont have to be a noble. Nobles have certain disadvantages that make them useless to play as adventurers.
    -The Land you can buy is not as OP as it seems, since there is simply far too much.
    -you may be able to buy items, but you can also farm them. With SCRIPTS. 24/7.

    Is the game pay2win?

    If you want to play a noble, then YES, it is pay2win. Wait for new continents(1 to 2 years after release) and aim to become a noble there.(after those 1 to 2 years, the game will be fair for all nobles)

    If you want to play an adventurer or crafter, then my answer is between NO and YES. You can get a house for free from your parents after they die.(they have to like you though) You can also become a child of a blacksmith or any other profession(to get access to all important stuff). There ARE advantages of paying Money, but we dont know what EXACTLY you can buy (we know about professionkits, parcels, horses, commercial builings and sieging weapons).

    Post edited by Termii on
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,270
    I think when this game comes out I'm going to organize a "barbarian horde" with the sole purpose of devastating the realm.

    Hey, goals are good, right? ;)
    Cellandine

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    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


  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    Kyleran said:
    I think when this game comes out I'm going to organize a "barbarian horde" with the sole purpose of devastating the realm.

    Hey, goals are good, right? ;)
    You Goon!

    "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 :-)

  • ArChWindArChWind Some Place, WIMember UncommonPosts: 1,266
    Kyleran said:
    ArChWind said:
    Until this game is actual release material the OP is correct. You can't win if you can't play so why is this thread drawing flies?
    Flies are drawn to crap don't ya know. :p
    :surprised: 

    I guess so. 

  • StopTheSlanderStopTheSlander Member CommonPosts: 2


    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.



    1. kingship takes massive community building, your clearly thinking of short term success if you actually think you can just drop 10k not have a community behind you and be king. Your going to lose that 10k so good luck. I HOPE, you buy king so you can lose it.

    2. It's not a headstart. 80% of the infrastructure is built during this time.....what does that mean? players starting AFTER expo will have better jobs, houses, gear, mats and weapons than you did when you started. Your technically playing catch up in expo. 

    2a. It's not even close to a PvP territory control so just stop already....

    3. IP is used to decide pick order when nobles choose land....they then balance this by giving everyone equal oppourtunity to expand or shrink their domain via KoE.

    4. Items that will decay if not taken care of, get stolen, get destroyed. You can buy 8 siege weapons but when someone torches them because you bought too many then RIP.

    Your uninformed propaganda is strong.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196






    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.





    1. kingship takes massive community building, your clearly thinking of short term success if you actually think you can just drop 10k not have a community behind you and be king. Your going to lose that 10k so good luck. I HOPE, you buy king so you can lose it.

    2. It's not a headstart. 80% of the infrastructure is built during this time.....what does that mean? players starting AFTER expo will have better jobs, houses, gear, mats and weapons than you did when you started. Your technically playing catch up in expo. 

    2a. It's not even close to a PvP territory control so just stop already....

    3. IP is used to decide pick order when nobles choose land....they then balance this by giving everyone equal oppourtunity to expand or shrink their domain via KoE.

    4. Items that will decay if not taken care of, get stolen, get destroyed. You can buy 8 siege weapons but when someone torches them because you bought too many then RIP.

    Your uninformed propaganda is strong.


    Pretty sure I'm much more informed than you are.  I mean... you are actually arguing that a 3 month no wipe headstart is not an advantage in a PvP game with territory control.

    My points stand. Ill let the readers decide who really is uninformed. 
    Galadourn

    "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 :-)

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,162
    lol the name of that new account...

    Damn, CoE is so entertaining with all their cultists.
    Galadourn
  • TimEisenTimEisen Columnist Member RarePosts: 2,972

    simon155 said:

    And I'd say it's NOT P2W for the following reasons:

    1. You can lose anything you buy to another player, even an NPC potentially, with nothing left to show for your money.

    2. The backing options are ONLY available PRE-launch to help players to define kingdoms, towns and more, and make the world better prepared for new players. This isn't a "keep throwing money in to stay ahead game".

    3. Starting out with extra furniture does not make you "win a game"

    4. Many MMOs sell aesthetic  goods for $, which don't offer game advantages, so we should steer clear of false definitions of "IP for $" equating to pay to win.

    5. Land can be lost. Buildings can be lost. Resources are finite. Mounts can be lost. Siege weapons can be lost. There is no permanent advantage.

    6. Elyria is a world filled with inequality. This isn't a "normal" MMO. In your bog standard MMO, there IS no King. All players are equal. In Elyria, ANY player can potentially rise through the ranks and depose another. A King is NOT equal to a peasant, but reaching King is NOT winning.

    7. Perhaps while you're blasting CoE about being P2W, you should define what your idea of "winning" is. If your ideal of winning is owning a mount, then perhaps for you it is P2W.. it just wouldn't fit most people's definition.





    For me it comes back to security. My impression from the KS to now is buying a high level position is incredibly secure. If it isn't then the P2 is less of a problem, bus as is it sounds pretty secure. I say sounds because that it my own interpretation. I have yet to see it cleared up on SS's end. It might be something they can't really define until further into development. /shrug
    I used to role-play a Warrior Priest now I role-play a writer.
    "Basically if a Ninja Turtle used it, or close to it, I like it."
  • WellspringWellspring Charlotte, NCMember RarePosts: 455

    TimEisen said:



    simon155 said:


    And I'd say it's NOT P2W for the following reasons:

    1. You can lose anything you buy to another player, even an NPC potentially, with nothing left to show for your money.

    2. The backing options are ONLY available PRE-launch to help players to define kingdoms, towns and more, and make the world better prepared for new players. This isn't a "keep throwing money in to stay ahead game".

    3. Starting out with extra furniture does not make you "win a game"

    4. Many MMOs sell aesthetic  goods for $, which don't offer game advantages, so we should steer clear of false definitions of "IP for $" equating to pay to win.

    5. Land can be lost. Buildings can be lost. Resources are finite. Mounts can be lost. Siege weapons can be lost. There is no permanent advantage.

    6. Elyria is a world filled with inequality. This isn't a "normal" MMO. In your bog standard MMO, there IS no King. All players are equal. In Elyria, ANY player can potentially rise through the ranks and depose another. A King is NOT equal to a peasant, but reaching King is NOT winning.

    7. Perhaps while you're blasting CoE about being P2W, you should define what your idea of "winning" is. If your ideal of winning is owning a mount, then perhaps for you it is P2W.. it just wouldn't fit most people's definition.







    For me it comes back to security. My impression from the KS to now is buying a high level position is incredibly secure. If it isn't then the P2 is less of a problem, bus as is it sounds pretty secure. I say sounds because that it my own interpretation. I have yet to see it cleared up on SS's end. It might be something they can't really define until further into development. /shrug


    Agreed. That has been my impression as well. They have to please two camps. The players that don't like P2W games, and the Kings who spent $10,000.00 to be on top and don't want to lose their money in an instant. I don't see how they can possibly appease both...

    And from what my impression is so far, for a KS King to lose their throne, they will either have to royally screw up somehow (like go out adventuring without an heir and be coup'd de grased 4ish times (outside of the 2hr respawn safety window), or a combined effort of many players, roughly the equivalent of $10k of time/in-game resources, will have to be mustered to try and overthrow the king.

    --------------------------------------------
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,443

    Kyleran said:

    I think when this game comes out I'm going to organize a "barbarian horde" with the sole purpose of devastating the realm.

    Hey, goals are good, right? ;)


    So despite all your trash talking about the game you're going to play it after all. There's a world for that. Hyp.. hypo.. hypocri... something like that. I can't seem to remember it.
    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,443




    TimEisen said:





    simon155 said:



    And I'd say it's NOT P2W for the following reasons:

    1. You can lose anything you buy to another player, even an NPC potentially, with nothing left to show for your money.

    2. The backing options are ONLY available PRE-launch to help players to define kingdoms, towns and more, and make the world better prepared for new players. This isn't a "keep throwing money in to stay ahead game".

    3. Starting out with extra furniture does not make you "win a game"

    4. Many MMOs sell aesthetic  goods for $, which don't offer game advantages, so we should steer clear of false definitions of "IP for $" equating to pay to win.

    5. Land can be lost. Buildings can be lost. Resources are finite. Mounts can be lost. Siege weapons can be lost. There is no permanent advantage.

    6. Elyria is a world filled with inequality. This isn't a "normal" MMO. In your bog standard MMO, there IS no King. All players are equal. In Elyria, ANY player can potentially rise through the ranks and depose another. A King is NOT equal to a peasant, but reaching King is NOT winning.

    7. Perhaps while you're blasting CoE about being P2W, you should define what your idea of "winning" is. If your ideal of winning is owning a mount, then perhaps for you it is P2W.. it just wouldn't fit most people's definition.









    For me it comes back to security. My impression from the KS to now is buying a high level position is incredibly secure. If it isn't then the P2 is less of a problem, bus as is it sounds pretty secure. I say sounds because that it my own interpretation. I have yet to see it cleared up on SS's end. It might be something they can't really define until further into development. /shrug




    Agreed. That has been my impression as well. They have to please two camps. The players that don't like P2W games, and the Kings who spent $10,000.00 to be on top and don't want to lose their money in an instant. I don't see how they can possibly appease both...

    And from what my impression is so far, for a KS King to lose their throne, they will either have to royally screw up somehow (like go out adventuring without an heir and be coup'd de grased 4ish times (outside of the 2hr respawn safety window), or a combined effort of many players, roughly the equivalent of $10k of time/in-game resources, will have to be mustered to try and overthrow the king.



    Sounds like EVE.
    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • TimEisenTimEisen Columnist Member RarePosts: 2,972




    TimEisen said:





    simon155 said:



    And I'd say it's NOT P2W for the following reasons:

    1. You can lose anything you buy to another player, even an NPC potentially, with nothing left to show for your money.

    2. The backing options are ONLY available PRE-launch to help players to define kingdoms, towns and more, and make the world better prepared for new players. This isn't a "keep throwing money in to stay ahead game".

    3. Starting out with extra furniture does not make you "win a game"

    4. Many MMOs sell aesthetic  goods for $, which don't offer game advantages, so we should steer clear of false definitions of "IP for $" equating to pay to win.

    5. Land can be lost. Buildings can be lost. Resources are finite. Mounts can be lost. Siege weapons can be lost. There is no permanent advantage.

    6. Elyria is a world filled with inequality. This isn't a "normal" MMO. In your bog standard MMO, there IS no King. All players are equal. In Elyria, ANY player can potentially rise through the ranks and depose another. A King is NOT equal to a peasant, but reaching King is NOT winning.

    7. Perhaps while you're blasting CoE about being P2W, you should define what your idea of "winning" is. If your ideal of winning is owning a mount, then perhaps for you it is P2W.. it just wouldn't fit most people's definition.









    For me it comes back to security. My impression from the KS to now is buying a high level position is incredibly secure. If it isn't then the P2 is less of a problem, bus as is it sounds pretty secure. I say sounds because that it my own interpretation. I have yet to see it cleared up on SS's end. It might be something they can't really define until further into development. /shrug




    Agreed. That has been my impression as well. They have to please two camps. The players that don't like P2W games, and the Kings who spent $10,000.00 to be on top and don't want to lose their money in an instant. I don't see how they can possibly appease both...

    And from what my impression is so far, for a KS King to lose their throne, they will either have to royally screw up somehow (like go out adventuring without an heir and be coup'd de grased 4ish times (outside of the 2hr respawn safety window), or a combined effort of many players, roughly the equivalent of $10k of time/in-game resources, will have to be mustered to try and overthrow the king.



    I agree. I get it. I mean, if someone pays 10k, logs in, gets ganked and loses it you probably aren't retaining that whale and we all know whales dictate MMOs these days. They have to make them safe enough, but how safe? I imagine only testing could help them figure that out. 
    I used to role-play a Warrior Priest now I role-play a writer.
    "Basically if a Ninja Turtle used it, or close to it, I like it."
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,270
    edited May 4


    Torval said:





    Kyleran said:



    I think when this game comes out I'm going to organize a "barbarian horde" with the sole purpose of devastating the realm.

    Hey, goals are good, right? ;)






    So despite all your trash talking about the game you're going to play it after all. There's a world for that. Hyp.. hypo.. hypocri... something like that. I can't seem to remember it.



    Not sure I've "trash talked" this game, I've pointed out obvious flaws in either the designs, payment models or people's willful ignorance of the facts. Blind faith is always a great target as well.

    But I am an EVE player and always wondered what playing as a Goon would be like.  If this game launches I'd like to join a group that wants to see the world burn.

    Also I slam games I play as well, CCP gets my wrath at times, equal opportunity for all is my motto.
    Post edited by Kyleran on

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    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


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,443

    Kyleran said:




    Torval said:







    Kyleran said:




    I think when this game comes out I'm going to organize a "barbarian horde" with the sole purpose of devastating the realm.

    Hey, goals are good, right? ;)








    So despite all your trash talking about the game you're going to play it after all. There's a world for that. Hyp.. hypo.. hypocri... something like that. I can't seem to remember it.




    Not sure I've "trash talked" this game, I've pointed out obvious flaws in either the designs, payment models or people's willful ignorance of the facts. Blind faith is always a great target as well.

    But I am an EVE player and always wondered what playing as a Goon would be like.  If this game launches I'd like to join a group that wants to see the world burn.

    Also I slam games I play as well, CCP gets my wrath at times, equal opportunity for all is my motto.

    Hmm, you're not easily provoked today I see.

    I'll let you in on a little secret. Everyone who plays EVE is a goon to the rest of us, you maelstrom of mayhem.

    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,270

    Torval said:



    Kyleran said:






    Torval said:









    Kyleran said:





    I think when this game comes out I'm going to organize a "barbarian horde" with the sole purpose of devastating the realm.

    Hey, goals are good, right? ;)










    So despite all your trash talking about the game you're going to play it after all. There's a world for that. Hyp.. hypo.. hypocri... something like that. I can't seem to remember it.





    Not sure I've "trash talked" this game, I've pointed out obvious flaws in either the designs, payment models or people's willful ignorance of the facts. Blind faith is always a great target as well.

    But I am an EVE player and always wondered what playing as a Goon would be like.  If this game launches I'd like to join a group that wants to see the world burn.

    Also I slam games I play as well, CCP gets my wrath at times, equal opportunity for all is my motto.


    Hmm, you're not easily provoked today I see.

    I'll let you in on a little secret. Everyone who plays EVE is a goon to the rest of us, you maelstrom of mayhem.



    Fair enough. ;)

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    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


  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,767
    The thing with saying that allowing RMT is pay to win is that it's no worse than allowing a PLEX like system. You pay money, you get an in-game items, you sell it for in-game currency, you use it to accomplish in-game objectives.

    How is a system in which you swap money directly for in-game currency with other players substantially different from this is any way?

    Yet people aren't calling EVE or any of the games that have copied it's system (Which is most of them now) "Pay to Win." It's just proof how illogical and driven by their emotions people are. One person calls out "Pay to Win!" and everyone gets to squawking because everyone else is squawking even if there is nothing to freak out about. 
  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 120
    Eldurian said:
    The thing with saying that allowing RMT is pay to win is that it's no worse than allowing a PLEX like system. You pay money, you get an in-game items, you sell it for in-game currency, you use it to accomplish in-game objectives.

    How is a system in which you swap money directly for in-game currency with other players substantially different from this is any way?

    Yet people aren't calling EVE or any of the games that have copied it's system (Which is most of them now) "Pay to Win." It's just proof how illogical and driven by their emotions people are. One person calls out "Pay to Win!" and everyone gets to squawking because everyone else is squawking even if there is nothing to freak out about. 
    It's not really the same. In game currency swapping hands for an item that does not impact other players experience in any way is not the same as providing a direct advantange to the player from the developer for money. In the example you're using, both players benefit, and they could easily come to an agreement to trade in game currency for sub time without the developer facilitating that. The actual item being sold by the developer has no value in an ingame capacity, in that sense it's no different than a player buying a cosmetic item from the cash shop and selling it for in game cash. It's the same thing in practice, would you also consider that p2w? 

    In game currency can change hands for many non gameplay reasons without prompting from developers. I give it to friends/family all the time, I give it away when I quit a game, etc. The actual transactions that provide the benefit to one party are still ultimately occuring between 2 players, so I dont see it in a P2W sense. It's still 2 players exchanging or giving their time spent, that's a shit ton different than OP items being popped into existence out of thin air because someone busted out their credit card. 
    Gdemami
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,270
    edited June 7
    Eldurian said:
    The thing with saying that allowing RMT is pay to win is that it's no worse than allowing a PLEX like system. You pay money, you get an in-game items, you sell it for in-game currency, you use it to accomplish in-game objectives.

    How is a system in which you swap money directly for in-game currency with other players substantially different from this is any way?

    Yet people aren't calling EVE or any of the games that have copied it's system (Which is most of them now) "Pay to Win." It's just proof how illogical and driven by their emotions people are. One person calls out "Pay to Win!" and everyone gets to squawking because everyone else is squawking even if there is nothing to freak out about. 
    I'm fairly certain almost everyone who decries "P2W" about paying cash for in game advantages believes PLEX like systems fall under this moniker.

    I've spent considerable time on these forums (or wasted my breath) explaining how and why PLEX trading has almost zero impact on other players game experience due to EVEs design.

    I can't say this would be true for every game and I can think of several titles where spending thousands to improve your gear bonuses can put players in a much higher power plane which non payers are likely never to reach.

    MMORPG I'm currently playing has no RMT that I'm able to discern, but for most modern games I've accepted most will have P2A (a more accurate term in most cases) in them.

    What matters to me is their impact on my personal game play and I look for titles where I feel it will be negligible.

    I'm not sure about COE yet.  Yes, people are buying Kingdoms but I'm not sure I really care as I likely would never aspire to such a role 

    EVE taught me running a large corp, or worse alliance or coalition even was a huge investment of time and meta gaming.

    I never envied the leaders their role and was grateful someone was willing to do all that work on such a thankless job.

    I don't think I really care if someone paid cash for the job, likely in COE leaders will pay even more in terms of time spent.

    Heck, you would have to pay me to be king, so let those willing have the job.

    Any kings out there reading this looking for a loyal subject? (pretty low maintenance too) ;)


    Post edited by Kyleran on

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    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


  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    The issue with the RMT is that it comes in top of the Buy2King P2W scheme.

    There is a reason that the whale who spent tens of thousands of dollars and bought not one but 2 of the 6 kingdoms on his server publicly posted his concern that it was getting over the top in the P2W category even for him. He felt his advantages were becoming insurmountable.

    Here you can buy yourself any position up to king (or I suppose Emperor if you buy 2 kingdoms) then buy additional advantages like Legendary Castles, war machines, technology, resources, etc...   Now to top it off RMT is allowed.  It's just the icing on the cake as now the same folks can use their real world resources to buy whatever they need once the game launches. So nothing in game was ever earned by in game actions.  Heck they could now just use real money to hire people to fight for them.

    (Please excuse any obvious typos as I'm on my phone)
    GdemamiYashaX

    "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 :-)

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,767
    edited June 8
    Eldurian said:
    The thing with saying that allowing RMT is pay to win is that it's no worse than allowing a PLEX like system. You pay money, you get an in-game items, you sell it for in-game currency, you use it to accomplish in-game objectives.

    How is a system in which you swap money directly for in-game currency with other players substantially different from this is any way?

    Yet people aren't calling EVE or any of the games that have copied it's system (Which is most of them now) "Pay to Win." It's just proof how illogical and driven by their emotions people are. One person calls out "Pay to Win!" and everyone gets to squawking because everyone else is squawking even if there is nothing to freak out about. 
    It's not really the same. In game currency swapping hands for an item that does not impact other players experience in any way is not the same as providing a direct advantange to the player from the developer for money. In the example you're using, both players benefit, and they could easily come to an agreement to trade in game currency for sub time without the developer facilitating that. The actual item being sold by the developer has no value in an ingame capacity, in that sense it's no different than a player buying a cosmetic item from the cash shop and selling it for in game cash. It's the same thing in practice, would you also consider that p2w? 

    In game currency can change hands for many non gameplay reasons without prompting from developers. I give it to friends/family all the time, I give it away when I quit a game, etc. The actual transactions that provide the benefit to one party are still ultimately occuring between 2 players, so I dont see it in a P2W sense. It's still 2 players exchanging or giving their time spent, that's a shit ton different than OP items being popped into existence out of thin air because someone busted out their credit card. 
    Well that's an entirely separate subject from the one I am discussing. My point is that RMT is not greater than PLEX on the pay to win scale.

    Now in terms of cash shop items. I've always held this opinion:

    If you you can turn cash into in-game gold and in-game gold into cash (or cash shop currency) then it's still no different from PLEX. If I don't want to pay for a cash shop item with in-game currency I just buy cash shop currency with it and then buy what I need. Something I've done many times in ArchAge. Similarly just like if I don't want to earn something bought with game currency in-game I can sell a PLEX and buy it with the proceeds from that, I can buy the cash shop item with cash if I don't want to save up for it in-game.

    The only meaningful difference between in-game currency and cash shop currency in a PLEX based game is their exchange rate. If your income source is the game cash shop items are cheaper when the ingame economy is good and more expensive when it's bad. If your income source is cash in-game currency items are cheaper when the economy is bad and expensive when it's good. That's the only difference.

    With pre-purchase items such as kickstarter perks, yeah that can give a serious advantage to wallet warriors unavailable to people who earn their stuff ingame. CoE while on my radar list is one of the lower games on it so I haven't researched it very much. I guess we'll see how it pans out. Hopefully the stat gap in the game is low enough that neither pay-to-win more play-to-win players will have a major advantage, and if it isn't, then it's very unlikely I'll would choose this game over the other options on my radar list. So no biggie. We'll see what happens.




    Post edited by Eldurian on
  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 1,945
    Eldurian said:
    The thing with saying that allowing RMT is pay to win is that it's no worse than allowing a PLEX like system. You pay money, you get an in-game items, you sell it for in-game currency, you use it to accomplish in-game objectives.

    How is a system in which you swap money directly for in-game currency with other players substantially different from this is any way?

    Yet people aren't calling EVE or any of the games that have copied it's system (Which is most of them now) "Pay to Win." It's just proof how illogical and driven by their emotions people are. One person calls out "Pay to Win!" and everyone gets to squawking because everyone else is squawking even if there is nothing to freak out about. 

    That's actually one of the main reasons people call other games p2w; although I can't think of any mmo that allows players to also buy power on the massive scale on display here.
    KyleranSlapshot1188Asm0deusGdemami
    ....
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,767
     Well if people feel PLEX is pay to win, then yeah, Pay to Win is here to stay. It's kind of proven itself to be a winning business model and I think most players have gotten over it these days which is why you see it in so many games.
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,541
    Eldurian said:
     Well if people feel PLEX is pay to win, then yeah, Pay to Win is here to stay. It's kind of proven itself to be a winning business model and I think most players have gotten over it these days which is why you see it in so many games.
    "Pay to Advance" is now so deeply entrenched in the age of "Free Gaming" that nothing will ever dislodge it.

    The reality is that "Pay to Advance" effectively becomes "Pay to Win" when combined with today's short player commitments. Buy the maximum advantage at launch, and you can pwn everyone else until you quit the game 2 months later, by which time they're starting to catch-up...
    GdemamiKyleranYashaXNilden
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,767
    Eldurian said:
     Well if people feel PLEX is pay to win, then yeah, Pay to Win is here to stay. It's kind of proven itself to be a winning business model and I think most players have gotten over it these days which is why you see it in so many games.
    "Pay to Advance" is now so deeply entrenched in the age of "Free Gaming" that nothing will ever dislodge it.

    The reality is that "Pay to Advance" effectively becomes "Pay to Win" when combined with today's short player commitments. Buy the maximum advantage at launch, and you can pwn everyone else until you quit the game 2 months later, by which time they're starting to catch-up...
    That's true for a game like ArcheAge. Takes A LOT of money to stay ahead in a game with gear loss on death.
  • MightyUncleanMightyUnclean Member RarePosts: 1,723
    Going to stay far, far away from this cash sink nightmare.  Remember the concept of an equal playing field that used to exist in games?  I guess the focus has just shifted from investing time to investing money.  What's next, paying for guaranteed headshots in an online FPS?  Hey, the other players have a chance to get a headshot, too.  They just have to work at it.  So that's cool.  I spend enough money in RL trying to keep my head above water.  Sure as hell not going to P2W in a video game.


    GdemamiSlapshot1188
Sign In or Register to comment.