Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Study says the 'deviants' are seen as trouble, how can this relate to F2P B2P Sub debates

greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon

Read something that instantly made me think of the long standing debate between the payment models used in MMOs. It was especially revealing to see what they said about the participants punishment levels for OVER contributing and under. It just sits on the side of Subscription games for me, all participants pay the same which this study claims that we desire by punishing those who contribute more or less than the average.  What say you? See anything matching up in favor of the opposing angles?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/why-good-deeds-dont-go-unpunished/

Most interesting section to me:

"Participants weren’t reluctant to punish other players despite the fact that this action took away from their own earnings; 77 percent of the participants deducted at least one point from another group member, and the average cost the punisher incurred was nearly 7 points. Not surprisingly, most people (nearly 70 percent) chose to punish the stingy deviants that contributed much less than the average. After all, these players were benefiting from others’ donations to the group fund without making large contributions of their own.

But here’s the amazing part: 51 percent of the participants also chose to punish the overly generous deviant. In other words, a majority of the people in this study were willing to reduce their own chance to win $100 just to punish a particularly cooperative group member. Furthermore, many participants actually wanted this individual to be kicked out of the group. When asked to rate how much they would like each player to remain in the group on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much), the average rating for the overly generous player was less than a 3."

 

Read that again... people willingly HURT themselves to punish other "people" being generous. If that's what F2P is about, no wonder I don't get it, maybe it's bottled up sadism - joke.

Comments

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member

    Who says everyone in a p2p game pays the same amount every month ? Maybe to the company running the game but the whales are still spending money buying gold/xp and "paying to win" people are just more oblivious about it in a sub game.

    I know that wasn't your point but you did imply it when you said you prefer subs because ppl all pay the same.

  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Who says everyone in a p2p game pays the same amount every month ? Maybe to the company running the game but the whales are still spending money buying gold/xp and "paying to win" people are just more oblivious about it in a sub game.

    I know that wasn't your point but you did imply it when you said you prefer subs because ppl all pay the same.

    I guess you are thinking of a hybrid model of some sort. All the sub games I played didn't have cash shops. WOW in the old days, RIFT when it first came out etc. I suppose you could count server transfers for 25 bucks as a cash shop type item but they aren't stated that way, instead we think of it as some IT person literally copying records so the cost is their 15 minutes or so doing that part.

    Yeah, I think you identified that I didn't mention hybrid models but what would I have called them, the topic was long enough as is :P

    If someone thinks the article is in favor of hybrid, go for reasoning it out. Could make good reading.

     

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    I like F2P games because I can spend part of hard earned income, and I make a decent amount with little debt so me and the wife spend quite a bit on our hobbies.  Mine being gaming and hers being shoes/handbags. With that being said I can spend $100 to $200 a month easily on a F2P game and gain the same advantages as someone like my Canadian buddy who is unemployed, sits at home all day and spends all his welfare money on Pot but he is able to play 14-16 hours a day but yet in a F2P I can keep up with him in gear, experience earned and gear acquired because I can pay for it.  Whereas he sits around all day farms for it.  In a Subscription game, I am always the looser due to not being able to keep up.  That is why I will forever enjoy F2P more.  Not only do I get to keep up with the Jones's but I also get to support lazy welfare bums so they don't have ot pay anything.  It's a win-win for everyone.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Who says everyone in a p2p game pays the same amount every month ? Maybe to the company running the game but the whales are still spending money buying gold/xp and "paying to win" people are just more oblivious about it in a sub game.

    I know that wasn't your point but you did imply it when you said you prefer subs because ppl all pay the same.

    I guess you are thinking of a hybrid model of some sort. All the sub games I played didn't have cash shops. WOW in the old days, RIFT when it first came out etc. I suppose you could count server transfers for 25 bucks as a cash shop type item but they aren't stated that way, instead we think of it as some IT person literally copying records so the cost is their 15 minutes or so doing that part.

    Yeah, I think you identified that I didn't mention hybrid models but what would I have called them, the topic was long enough as is :P

    If someone thinks the article is in favor of hybrid, go for reasoning it out. Could make good reading.

     

     Think he means buying Gold from Chinese Gold Farmers.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 18,037Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Who says everyone in a p2p game pays the same amount every month ? Maybe to the company running the game but the whales are still spending money buying gold/xp and "paying to win" people are just more oblivious about it in a sub game.

    I know that wasn't your point but you did imply it when you said you prefer subs because ppl all pay the same.

    True, but at least there they are cheaters who might be banned and in the same class as people using hacks.

    I actually don't care if people pay the same or not, heck games are a lot cheaper in US than here in Sweden but we have a cheaper internet connection here... 

    But it ticks me off when certain people gets in game advantages for none game reasons no matter if it is because they pay more, because they know a dev or for another reason. Only for advantages who affect the balance though, more char slots or bank space is fine by me.

    How they get the advantage and in which payment model doesn't really matters.

    As for the deviant thing, it is not something new. Some people are just jerks.

  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    ...snip

    True, but at least there they are cheaters who might be banned and in the same class as people using hacks.

    I actually don't care if people pay the same or not, heck games are a lot cheaper in US than here in Sweden but we have a cheaper internet connection here... 

    ...snip

    Sweden eh? That's near Norway. Off-topic but wondering, is music like this considered popular and do people sing it in the streets or hum it or is it considered old person music like folk/country music is viewed in the U.S.?

  • Ramonski7Ramonski7 Aurora, ILPosts: 2,656Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by greenreen

    Read something that instantly made me think of the long standing debate between the payment models used in MMOs. It was especially revealing to see what they said about the participants punishment levels for OVER contributing and under. It just sits on the side of Subscription games for me, all participants pay the same which this study claims that we desire by punishing those who contribute more or less than the average.  What say you? See anything matching up in favor of the opposing angles?

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/why-good-deeds-dont-go-unpunished/

    Most interesting section to me:

    "Participants weren’t reluctant to punish other players despite the fact that this action took away from their own earnings; 77 percent of the participants deducted at least one point from another group member, and the average cost the punisher incurred was nearly 7 points. Not surprisingly, most people (nearly 70 percent) chose to punish the stingy deviants that contributed much less than the average. After all, these players were benefiting from others’ donations to the group fund without making large contributions of their own.

    But here’s the amazing part: 51 percent of the participants also chose to punish the overly generous deviant. In other words, a majority of the people in this study were willing to reduce their own chance to win $100 just to punish a particularly cooperative group member. Furthermore, many participants actually wanted this individual to be kicked out of the group. When asked to rate how much they would like each player to remain in the group on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much), the average rating for the overly generous player was less than a 3."

     

    Read that again... people willingly HURT themselves to punish other "people" being generous. If that's what F2P is about, no wonder I don't get it, maybe it's bottled up sadism - joke.

    That's because the envy of one man's wealth garners a stronger emotional response than the frugality of another. Ask yourself:

     

    image
    "Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."

  • RhinotonesRhinotones BenowaPosts: 238Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    I like F2P games because I can spend part of hard earned income, and I make a decent amount with little debt so me and the wife spend quite a bit on our hobbies.  Mine being gaming and hers being shoes/handbags. With that being said I can spend $100 to $200 a month easily on a F2P game and gain the same advantages. as someone like my Canadian buddy who is unemployed, sits at home all day and spends all his welfare money on Pot but he is able to play 14-16 hours a day but yet in a F2P I can keep up with him in gear, experience earned and gear acquired because I can pay for it.  Whereas he sits around all day farms for it.  In a Subscription game, I am always the looser due to not being able to keep upThat is why I will forever enjoy F2P more.  Not only do I get to keep up with the Jones's but I also get to support lazy welfare bums so they don't have ot pay anything.  It's a win-win for everyone.

    One strong example of how FTP works and why there'll always be discussions and disagreements on the model.

    FTP offers a positive gaming experience for those willing to spend $$$ to keep up when they don't have massive amounts of time trying to keep up with those that do; Also for those that are cash strapped and for everyone else in the middle. 

    image
  • RhinotonesRhinotones BenowaPosts: 238Member Uncommon

    Very interesting article and I can see your connection towards the different payment models.

    It's disappointing to see the way society seems to be headed, punishing those that overly contribute. If you're too helpful or generous you're likely to be singled out as a threat or nonconformer rather than identified as an asset to the team. :(

    image
  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by Ramonski7

    That's because the envy of one man's wealth garners a stronger emotional response than the frugality of another. Ask yourself:

     

    I think you summarize it perfectly.

  • MuruganMurugan D, COPosts: 1,494Member
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    I like F2P games because I can spend part of hard earned income, and I make a decent amount with little debt so me and the wife spend quite a bit on our hobbies.  Mine being gaming and hers being shoes/handbags. With that being said I can spend $100 to $200 a month easily on a F2P game and gain the same advantages as someone like my Canadian buddy who is unemployed, sits at home all day and spends all his welfare money on Pot but he is able to play 14-16 hours a day but yet in a F2P I can keep up with him in gear, experience earned and gear acquired because I can pay for it.  Whereas he sits around all day farms for it.  In a Subscription game, I am always the looser due to not being able to keep up.  That is why I will forever enjoy F2P more.  Not only do I get to keep up with the Jones's but I also get to support lazy welfare bums so they don't have ot pay anything.  It's a win-win for everyone.

    Wow i have never seen someone actually admit to spending $100 a month on virtual items in a video game.

     

    I am shocked, I thought even in the era of F2P that you people still hid in the shadows and pretended to just play the game like everyone else.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by greenreen

    Read something that instantly made me think of the long standing debate between the payment models used in MMOs. It was especially revealing to see what they said about the participants punishment levels for OVER contributing and under. It just sits on the side of Subscription games for me, all participants pay the same which this study claims that we desire by punishing those who contribute more or less than the average.  What say you? See anything matching up in favor of the opposing angles?

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/why-good-deeds-dont-go-unpunished/

    Most interesting section to me:

    "Participants weren’t reluctant to punish other players despite the fact that this action took away from their own earnings; 77 percent of the participants deducted at least one point from another group member, and the average cost the punisher incurred was nearly 7 points. Not surprisingly, most people (nearly 70 percent) chose to punish the stingy deviants that contributed much less than the average. After all, these players were benefiting from others’ donations to the group fund without making large contributions of their own.

    But here’s the amazing part: 51 percent of the participants also chose to punish the overly generous deviant. In other words, a majority of the people in this study were willing to reduce their own chance to win $100 just to punish a particularly cooperative group member. Furthermore, many participants actually wanted this individual to be kicked out of the group. When asked to rate how much they would like each player to remain in the group on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much), the average rating for the overly generous player was less than a 3."

     

    Read that again... people willingly HURT themselves to punish other "people" being generous. If that's what F2P is about, no wonder I don't get it, maybe it's bottled up sadism - joke.

    I just don't see the correlation between this and the f2p model. I mean I can see it in the terms of people would more likely want cheaters to be punished if they spent more money in a f2p game than if they didn't. Other than that, I just don't see it.

Sign In or Register to comment.