Since the beginning of time, players have looked for the easiest, shortest route to their destination. They've downloaded strategy guides, looked up quests on the internet, paid for gold, paid for characters, used exploits, rolled FotM classes, used leveling enhancements, created twinks, multi-boxed... you name it. They all give players an advantage. Players like to one up other players. They'll do anything, fair and unfair, to achieve it. The goal is to be on top. Best gear, best class, best guild, best PVPer, best everything. Knowing this, the whole world has created avenues to assist players in achieving this... we have websites dedicated to games, gold farmers, leveling services, eBay, enhanced gaming equipment, macros, add-ons, auction houses... and yes, even in-game cash shops.
Whether you pay for it or not, you cannot escape the fact that you will always have something that someone else does not at some point in the game. By definition, this gives you an advantage over someone else. That's why there can never be balance... bought or otherwise.
What you say has a merit of truth to it except for one simple idea.
Knowing what you said is true should a developer strive to minimize the avenues people can take to short cut the systems or should they look for ways to profit from them? Because to me the answer to that question is obvious and I don't know why we as gamers would ever defend a business model that does the later.
Since the beginning of time, players have looked for the easiest, shortest route to their destination. They've downloaded strategy guides, looked up quests on the internet, paid for gold, paid for characters, used exploits, rolled FotM classes, used leveling enhancements, created twinks, multi-boxed... you name it. They all give players an advantage. Players like to one up other players. They'll do anything, fair and unfair, to achieve it. The goal is to be on top. Best gear, best class, best guild, best PVPer, best everything. Knowing this, the whole world has created avenues to assist players in achieving this... we have websites dedicated to games, gold farmers, leveling services, eBay, enhanced gaming equipment, macros, add-ons, auction houses... and yes, even in-game cash shops.
Whether you pay for it or not, you cannot escape the fact that you will always have something that someone else does not at some point in the game. By definition, this gives you an advantage over someone else. That's why there can never be balance... bought or otherwise.
What you say has a merit of truth to it except for one simple idea.
Knowing what you said is true should a developer strive to minimize the avenues people can take to short cut the systems or should they look for ways to profit from them? Because to me the answer to that question is obvious and I don't know why we as gamers would ever defend a business model that does the later.
Well lets see:
1. Players were doing the above issues by the course in the thousands.
2. Despite a great deal of money spent by devs to stop this and thousands of bannings, it not only continued it thrived and become more common.
3. Games are more expensive to make today than 10 years ago.
4. The populations of games remains the same a 10 years ago.
5. The subscription price of games is the same as 10 years ago.
So lets see games cost more to make, yet devs are not making more money on average, and the gamers themselves embraced the multi-box/powerlevel/rush to cap/be the best/exploit/fotm mentality.
Seems obvious to me to, but for the opposite conclusion.
In the end, the devs did this and players responded by paying more. Sounds like they embraced it fully.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Q: What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
A: Because in most cases it is transparent to you as a player. Loot tables, storage space, gold sinks (ex: neon haircuts in UO) and other aspects of gameplay are built to support or regulate the flow of items and currency in and out of the game.
One of the most innovative solutions was the creation of in-game transferrable items for account/character services. Ultima Online was one of the first to adopt this system back in 2003 using tokens. The next most notable use of that system was EVE Online's PLEX in 2008. Since then several other games, including the recently released Guild Wars 2, have incorporated similar systems.
In many games, the changes were to stem such transfers altogether by creating multiple currencies so that having gobs of game gold was less effective, especially at the higher tiers of gameplay where the more needed items can only be purchased with non-transferrable currency, often obtained from questing or faction/objective farming.
We will have to agree to disagree I guess. All those systems you talk about where first and foremost designed to get players to spend more real money than a $15 month sub could pull. Where you see the companies trying to solve a issue for their consumers I see a company trying to maximize their profits at the expense of game play mechanics.
If you are talking specifically about the UO tokens and PLEX (since I would find it odd to consider the loot table and other internal changes part of a scheme to make more money), then I can tell you with complete certainty the in-game transferrable items were created to support a growing playstyle preference and to manage the various problems related to third party virtual goods transactions on both the player side and the dev side of the issue.
The changes to support in game trading of real money to in game currency throughout the history of MMOs is a topic I'd be more than willing to discuss at length if you'd like to create a thread on it or drop me a PM.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Since the beginning of time, players have looked for the easiest, shortest route to their destination. They've downloaded strategy guides, looked up quests on the internet, paid for gold, paid for characters, used exploits, rolled FotM classes, used leveling enhancements, created twinks, multi-boxed... you name it. They all give players an advantage. Players like to one up other players. They'll do anything, fair and unfair, to achieve it. The goal is to be on top. Best gear, best class, best guild, best PVPer, best everything. Knowing this, the whole world has created avenues to assist players in achieving this... we have websites dedicated to games, gold farmers, leveling services, eBay, enhanced gaming equipment, macros, add-ons, auction houses... and yes, even in-game cash shops.
Whether you pay for it or not, you cannot escape the fact that you will always have something that someone else does not at some point in the game. By definition, this gives you an advantage over someone else. That's why there can never be balance... bought or otherwise.
"Since the beginning of time..."
A post that started out epic and continued to deliver.
Great post, pmiles.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by ArclanThey don't provide any real data because they don't have it; companies aren't releasing it. And why is that? To confuse and deceive the consumer.
There's data out there, but most of it you'd have to shell out money for, simply because that kind of data is valuable. Here are some free sources for you, several of which explain MAU, ARPU/ARPPU and other terms regularly used in these discussions.
None of those links provides MMO data. I encourage anyone reading this who has 15 minutes to waste to check out the links for themselves. A couple useful albeit irrelevant takeaways were:
1. P2W is a huge revenue generator for browser games.
2. Five years ago, ten percent (10%) of "F2P" browser players paid on average $50 a month.
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
Q: What systems exactly did they change to support in game trading of real money to in game currency because I can not think of any?
A: Because in most cases it is transparent to you as a player. Loot tables, storage space, gold sinks (ex: neon haircuts in UO) and other aspects of gameplay are built to support or regulate the flow of items and currency in and out of the game.
One of the most innovative solutions was the creation of in-game transferrable items for account/character services. Ultima Online was one of the first to adopt this system back in 2003 using tokens. The next most notable use of that system was EVE Online's PLEX in 2008. Since then several other games, including the recently released Guild Wars 2, have incorporated similar systems.
In many games, the changes were to stem such transfers altogether by creating multiple currencies so that having gobs of game gold was less effective, especially at the higher tiers of gameplay where the more needed items can only be purchased with non-transferrable currency, often obtained from questing or faction/objective farming.
We will have to agree to disagree I guess. All those systems you talk about where first and foremost designed to get players to spend more real money than a $15 month sub could pull. Where you see the companies trying to solve a issue for their consumers I see a company trying to maximize their profits at the expense of game play mechanics.
If you are talking specifically about the UO tokens and PLEX (since I would find it odd to consider the loot table and other internal changes part of a scheme to make more money), then I can tell you with complete certainty the in-game transferrable items were created to support a growing playstyle preference and to manage the various problems related to third party virtual goods transactions on both the player side and the dev side of the issue.
The changes to support in game trading of real money to in game currency throughout the history of MMOs is a topic I'd be more than willing to discuss at length if you'd like to create a thread on it or drop me a PM.
I think you and I are looking at this from opposite sides. I really don't know about the development side since that's not my industry but as a gamer what I do know is there has been a direct correlation between a drop in the number of hours I spend playing MMO's and the raise of F2P/B2P payment models. Maybe it's me but I have not played a MMO released in the last 5 years that is able to hold my attention and provide the kinds of deep gameplay systems needed to play thousands of hours. All the so called MMO's released recently have been little more than consumable couple hindered hours distractions and yea I blame the shift in payment models as a huge part of that. Modern MMO's are designed around getting you to spend as much money as possible during that few hundred hours most people play them rather than trying to provide compelling game systems that would motivate people to form social bonds (I.E. Guilds) and continue playing for years.
When a developer starts to design games systems around micro transactions rather than gameplay gamers will suffer. And no one is going to convince me that cash shop's don't influence game design.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by ArclanThey don't provide any real data because they don't have it; companies aren't releasing it. And why is that? To confuse and deceive the consumer.
There's data out there, but most of it you'd have to shell out money for, simply because that kind of data is valuable. Here are some free sources for you, several of which explain MAU, ARPU/ARPPU and other terms regularly used in these discussions.
None of those links provides MMO data. I encourage anyone reading this who has 15 minutes to waste to check out the links for themselves. A couple useful albeit irrelevant takeaways were:
1. P2W is a huge revenue generator for browser games.
2. Five years ago, ten percent (10%) of "F2P" browser players paid on average $50 a month.
You don't see how you're making it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you? Work with me here, man.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by jalexbrown I don't consider the ability to buy gear with real-world cash to be pay-to-win if the same gear can be obtained in-game. At best you're buying a temporary advantage, and in the long run you're paying to not have the mechanical experience of the players that worked for their gear - giving the advantage to the person that worked for their gear. If you want to buy a full set of epics with real-world cash, you're only giving yourself a disadvantage in the long run.
Time is money.
Everything your experience is temporary .. including your life.
If you want to spend cash on an advantage that might last a month or two at best and then be at a disadvantage once the rest of players catch up, then be my guest. I'll gladly enjoy my game for free, and you'd be one of the suckers that would be funding it.
Oh .. i never pay for a F2P game. I am, like you, one of the freeloaders.
However, the point still stands. Everything is temporary.
I'll derail the thread for this one...time itself isn't temporary. If time itself was temporary, there would nothing to measure it's temporality.
technically, time is temporary and has a temporality of 100%,,,since everything else's temporality is measured in report to time.
You have to wonder about the sanity of some peeps don't you. The single arguement you can apply to FTP is that the cash shop could be pay to win. Pay in advance or pay if you feel you get value out of a game and want to contribute - in any other service industry we would be showering platitudes on a company with this approach. The issue as above - fear of the different, and misplaced loyalty driven by addiction.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom You have to wonder about the sanity of some peeps don't you. The single arguement you can apply to FTP is that the cash shop could be pay to win. Pay in advance or pay if you feel you get value out of a game and want to contribute - in any other service industry we would be showering platitudes on a company with this approach. The issue as above - fear of the different, and misplaced loyalty driven by addiction.
It's not the only argument but it is a big one. P2W is a business decision entered into by F2P game makers more than a inherent result of the business model. I think TSW even though it's B2P is probably the best example of where these models can work. And no I don't include GW2 because it breaks 3 of my shitty game rules; real money to in game money conversion, slot machine boxes with cash shop keys, and real money inventory space management.
My big problem with F2P and to large extent B2P is it changes how content is created for the game. It shifts the pressure on game developers from creating content that takes months to years to consume so a person keeps paying for a sub to content that can be consumed casually as quickly as possible so people hit those pay speed bumps as soon as possible. I won't call them walls because I'm sure someone will tell me the story of how they never spent a dime in a F2P game but if anyone thinks that content isn't designed with the pay model in mind regardless of the payment model they are mistaken.
It seems to me people should grow up and decide what is best for them and let others decide what is best for themselves.
Definitely. If an RPG was a bottle of your favorite beverage, your standard P2P MMORPG would be that same bottle poured into a barrel and filled brim with water. It takes a whole lot more time to drink all that but at the same time it might be too diluted for you to enjoy anymore.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by udon if anyone thinks that content isn't designed with the pay model in mind regardless of the payment model they are mistaken.
Are you suggesting that isn't true of any and every MMO, regardless of business model? For that matter, of any and every entertainment service?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It seems to me people should grow up and decide what is best for them and let others decide what is best for themselves.
Definitely. If an RPG was a bottle of your favorite beverage, your standard P2P MMORPG would be that same bottle poured into a barrel and filled brim with water. It takes a whole lot more time to drink all that but at the same time it might be too diluted for you to enjoy anymore.
and your standard F2P game would be that same bottle poured into a barrel and filled brim with horse manure, and you must drink it all before being allowed to reach the bottle. but of course, the developer offers to remove a gallon of shit for every dollar you give him.
and if you were to do some quick maths, to remove all the shit you would have paid a lot more than the cost of the bottle...or drank a lot of shit...your call, really
Originally posted by udon if anyone thinks that content isn't designed with the pay model in mind regardless of the payment model they are mistaken.
Are you suggesting that isn't true of any and every MMO, regardless of business model? For that matter, of any and every entertainment service?
I did say regardless of payment model didn't I?
I think this really comes down to personal preferences. If you prefer the MMO's that F2P and B2P tends to deliver than your living in a golden age of gaming. If instead you prefer the old school MMO's than this new "revolution" in gaming looks pretty under whelming. I honestly wanted F2P and B2P games to work for me and I gave them a good try but I find them on the whole are shallow lifeless worlds hardly worth my time for more than a couple hundred hours of gameplay as a distraction. Nothing like the thousands I have spent in older MMO's. Modern MMO's are meant to be consumed and disposed of rather than lived in.
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"?
[mod edit]
In other words:
If you can buy something that gives power greater then something that can only be acquired in game. I.e. Buy a Sword that does 1000 damage when the best sword found in gameplay only does 900 damage.
except it isnt as black and white as your trying it to be
take for example Neverwinter Online. follow me here for a second:
they have an enchantment system that grants heyfty amounts of power at the highest level of enchantment
likewise, the higher the enchantment level, the lowers the chances of succeeding in enchanting your items, up to 1% at level 5.
and of course, there is a cash shop item that gratns 100% success chance per enchantment attempt. but, and here's the kicker, you can get an ingame currency that trades directly for cash shop currency.
this is a pretty standard practice in F2P games, many sport similar systems.
it has been calculated that to be fully decked in the best possible enchantment level would cost someone close to $600
getting the amount of ingame currency to trade for cash shop currency would take years. YEARS, devoted to farm for it with your soul.
or....you could skip both the ingame currency and the cash shop, and try your luck at 1% per attempt...which again, would probably represent a multi-year quest for getting to the same level of a cash shop user.
but of course, on the paper, that possibility exists.
dunno about you, but that still sounds like pure, absolute pay to win to me, even tho technically you can get there without paying
I think we all agree that there's a point where the grind becomes so absolutly ridicule and borderline clinically insane, that it actually defies th advertisements and it simply stops being a reasonable alternative to paying
but grind is a very subjetive term, so its impossible to quantify at what point a game is or isnt pay to win. grind depends on the eye of the beholder.
Here's a kicker for people who say F2P games are grindy as fuck: There is no grind when you enjoy playing a game regardless of payment model. If you do not enjoy the game then you will grind but if you do not enjoy a game while play it?
P2W applies to PVP or RVR. NPC's don't give a crap if you paid 10 bucks for the OP epic sword of al times, The guy you killed in one shot on the other side of the monitor does. World of Tanks is the best example. You can buy gold rounds with in game currency you purchase with Real life currency. Its easy to tell when someone has gold rounds. Roll up to a guy with the same tank hit him 5 times in the sweet spot, half dead. He hits you 2 times ANYWHERE with gold rounds Your blown up. That's P2W.
Comments
What you say has a merit of truth to it except for one simple idea.
Knowing what you said is true should a developer strive to minimize the avenues people can take to short cut the systems or should they look for ways to profit from them? Because to me the answer to that question is obvious and I don't know why we as gamers would ever defend a business model that does the later.
Well lets see:
1. Players were doing the above issues by the course in the thousands.
2. Despite a great deal of money spent by devs to stop this and thousands of bannings, it not only continued it thrived and become more common.
3. Games are more expensive to make today than 10 years ago.
4. The populations of games remains the same a 10 years ago.
5. The subscription price of games is the same as 10 years ago.
So lets see games cost more to make, yet devs are not making more money on average, and the gamers themselves embraced the multi-box/powerlevel/rush to cap/be the best/exploit/fotm mentality.
Seems obvious to me to, but for the opposite conclusion.
In the end, the devs did this and players responded by paying more. Sounds like they embraced it fully.
If you are talking specifically about the UO tokens and PLEX (since I would find it odd to consider the loot table and other internal changes part of a scheme to make more money), then I can tell you with complete certainty the in-game transferrable items were created to support a growing playstyle preference and to manage the various problems related to third party virtual goods transactions on both the player side and the dev side of the issue.
The changes to support in game trading of real money to in game currency throughout the history of MMOs is a topic I'd be more than willing to discuss at length if you'd like to create a thread on it or drop me a PM.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"Since the beginning of time..."
A post that started out epic and continued to deliver.
Great post, pmiles.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Puzzle Pirate's numbers
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4046/what_are_the_rewards_of_.php
Here's one for a MUD, which is rather interesting
http://bc-dev.net/2013/04/29/maiden-desmodus-player-and-revenue-data/
Some individual numbers here for MMOs as well as a lot of casual games
http://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/gdc2012/slides/Summit_Social & Online Games/Greer_Emily_Core Games Real.pdf
More individual numbers. Of special note is the spike for Shaiya and other eastern PVP games
http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/11/arppu-in-freemium-games/
And if you have the cash and don't trust SDR's report for whatever reason, here's another one:
http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/12/06/inside-virtual-goods-tracking-the-us-virtual-goods-market-2011-–-2012-is-here/
None of those links provides MMO data. I encourage anyone reading this who has 15 minutes to waste to check out the links for themselves. A couple useful albeit irrelevant takeaways were:
1. P2W is a huge revenue generator for browser games.
2. Five years ago, ten percent (10%) of "F2P" browser players paid on average $50 a month.
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
I think you and I are looking at this from opposite sides. I really don't know about the development side since that's not my industry but as a gamer what I do know is there has been a direct correlation between a drop in the number of hours I spend playing MMO's and the raise of F2P/B2P payment models. Maybe it's me but I have not played a MMO released in the last 5 years that is able to hold my attention and provide the kinds of deep gameplay systems needed to play thousands of hours. All the so called MMO's released recently have been little more than consumable couple hindered hours distractions and yea I blame the shift in payment models as a huge part of that. Modern MMO's are designed around getting you to spend as much money as possible during that few hundred hours most people play them rather than trying to provide compelling game systems that would motivate people to form social bonds (I.E. Guilds) and continue playing for years.
When a developer starts to design games systems around micro transactions rather than gameplay gamers will suffer. And no one is going to convince me that cash shop's don't influence game design.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You don't see how you're making it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you? Work with me here, man.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Time is much better explained by an expert.
Oderint, dum metuant.
That applies probably more to those who cannot accept progress and call it all kind of names.
Isn't that no different than paying for a gameshark to beat the game?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
It's not the only argument but it is a big one. P2W is a business decision entered into by F2P game makers more than a inherent result of the business model. I think TSW even though it's B2P is probably the best example of where these models can work. And no I don't include GW2 because it breaks 3 of my shitty game rules; real money to in game money conversion, slot machine boxes with cash shop keys, and real money inventory space management.
My big problem with F2P and to large extent B2P is it changes how content is created for the game. It shifts the pressure on game developers from creating content that takes months to years to consume so a person keeps paying for a sub to content that can be consumed casually as quickly as possible so people hit those pay speed bumps as soon as possible. I won't call them walls because I'm sure someone will tell me the story of how they never spent a dime in a F2P game but if anyone thinks that content isn't designed with the pay model in mind regardless of the payment model they are mistaken.
It seems to me people should grow up and decide what is best for them and let others decide what is best for themselves.
Time = Money
Money = Time
My own personal rules (subject to change):
Playing 8+ hours per day to be competitive with non professional players is not worth for me.
Investing $200+ per year in a game is not worth for me.
GW2 is worth for me since I don't need to play 8 hours per day or spend $200+ a year to be competitive.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I don't particularly care how content is designed. The real question is whether it is fun.
And certainly there are lots of free and fun content out there.
Definitely. If an RPG was a bottle of your favorite beverage, your standard P2P MMORPG would be that same bottle poured into a barrel and filled brim with water. It takes a whole lot more time to drink all that but at the same time it might be too diluted for you to enjoy anymore.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Are you suggesting that isn't true of any and every MMO, regardless of business model? For that matter, of any and every entertainment service?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
and your standard F2P game would be that same bottle poured into a barrel and filled brim with horse manure, and you must drink it all before being allowed to reach the bottle. but of course, the developer offers to remove a gallon of shit for every dollar you give him.
and if you were to do some quick maths, to remove all the shit you would have paid a lot more than the cost of the bottle...or drank a lot of shit...your call, really
I did say regardless of payment model didn't I?
I think this really comes down to personal preferences. If you prefer the MMO's that F2P and B2P tends to deliver than your living in a golden age of gaming. If instead you prefer the old school MMO's than this new "revolution" in gaming looks pretty under whelming. I honestly wanted F2P and B2P games to work for me and I gave them a good try but I find them on the whole are shallow lifeless worlds hardly worth my time for more than a couple hundred hours of gameplay as a distraction. Nothing like the thousands I have spent in older MMO's. Modern MMO's are meant to be consumed and disposed of rather than lived in.
Maybe it's just me.
In other words:
If you can buy something that gives power greater then something that can only be acquired in game. I.e. Buy a Sword that does 1000 damage when the best sword found in gameplay only does 900 damage.
That is the truest and ONLY definition of P2W.
SUP
except it isnt as black and white as your trying it to be
take for example Neverwinter Online. follow me here for a second:
they have an enchantment system that grants heyfty amounts of power at the highest level of enchantment
likewise, the higher the enchantment level, the lowers the chances of succeeding in enchanting your items, up to 1% at level 5.
and of course, there is a cash shop item that gratns 100% success chance per enchantment attempt. but, and here's the kicker, you can get an ingame currency that trades directly for cash shop currency.
this is a pretty standard practice in F2P games, many sport similar systems.
it has been calculated that to be fully decked in the best possible enchantment level would cost someone close to $600
getting the amount of ingame currency to trade for cash shop currency would take years. YEARS, devoted to farm for it with your soul.
or....you could skip both the ingame currency and the cash shop, and try your luck at 1% per attempt...which again, would probably represent a multi-year quest for getting to the same level of a cash shop user.
but of course, on the paper, that possibility exists.
dunno about you, but that still sounds like pure, absolute pay to win to me, even tho technically you can get there without paying
I think we all agree that there's a point where the grind becomes so absolutly ridicule and borderline clinically insane, that it actually defies th advertisements and it simply stops being a reasonable alternative to paying
but grind is a very subjetive term, so its impossible to quantify at what point a game is or isnt pay to win. grind depends on the eye of the beholder.
hallo ~_~
P2W applies to PVP or RVR. NPC's don't give a crap if you paid 10 bucks for the OP epic sword of al times, The guy you killed in one shot on the other side of the monitor does. World of Tanks is the best example. You can buy gold rounds with in game currency you purchase with Real life currency. Its easy to tell when someone has gold rounds. Roll up to a guy with the same tank hit him 5 times in the sweet spot, half dead. He hits you 2 times ANYWHERE with gold rounds Your blown up. That's P2W.