1) Items that progress one's character in a meaningful way that are not available without the item mall (in other words, the OP's Definition)
2) Class customization options that are BOTH (a) strictly superior to the ones offered at the basic level and (b) unavailable through non-paying means
3) the presence of a game mechanic that solely exists to have people go to the item shop to circumvent it (see also: allods online)
I agree with the OP (though not their tone). "p2w" that people complain about is much more often "pay for convenience" than it is "pay to win". but "p2w" is kind of a snarl word these days. of course if a game's developers want to eliminate this term being bandied about their game they can simply charge a subscription for their game and have zero item shop. Yanno, like these damn games used to be
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Take two players, have one buy the game, and monthly sub. Have the other play for free... and compare the results. There will be a drastic difference in the player experience based on the money paid. This is P2W.
Not sure if serious....
Of course it is.
The free version of WoW let you level up to 20.
You have to pay to level to L90.
Last time i check, L90 has more power than L20. So it is p2w by the definition of many here.
I guess they rather talk about F2P as a whole game and not about some kind of endless trial. It is just a trial but clever marketed as a "F2P" option. WoW is not a true F2P game...get real.
That is just semantics. I cannot play certainly classes on LOTRO if i don't pay. I cannot use certain star ships on STO if i don't pay. So those are not whole games too?
It is just a matter of degree. In fact, WoW is *more* p2w than these games, because the difference between free (L20) and pay (L90) is HUGE. WoW is the worse p2w game.
I cant follow your logic. One game is a sub based mmorpg which is advertising with an endless trial and calling it "F2P" . Its a trial nothing more with the hope people will sub to the game after they reach lvl 20. The other games you are talking about offer a free to play model from the start and the whole game concept is based on it. WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
Take two players, have one buy the game, and monthly sub. Have the other play for free... and compare the results. There will be a drastic difference in the player experience based on the money paid. This is P2W.
Not sure if serious....
Of course it is.
The free version of WoW let you level up to 20.
You have to pay to level to L90.
Last time i check, L90 has more power than L20. So it is p2w by the definition of many here.
So you agree that p2w is found everywhere in f2p games then. At least one person is willing to acknowledge it. It's a start.
P2W is found in ALL commercial games. It is only the games that dont take any money that are not P2W. It is only hyporcrits that choose to suppose that the commercial games that THEY like are not P2W.... and that those that they do not, are....
Just like everything in life, things are best done in moderation. To much any good thing can make it a bad thing. Providing something for money is generally good (and the definition of P2W), but too much of this can be a problem.
Originally posted by FinalFikus
All sub game and box sales are pay to win. Everyone pays the same solves that problem.
Now, onto unsolved problems...
Everyone doesnt pay the same... or get the same thing, even in box sales. This is especially true with subs. What would be more accurate is this: "P2P is extremely P2W... but it is an accepted part of the industry, so there isnt any need to discuss the obvious."
P2W, the concept at heart, doesn't infer subscriptions.
If you're playing a game with a subscription model and you do not pay the subscription, you're not going to win at all because you won't be playing. (duh?).
If 2 people are playing WoW, and both are max level (so this presumes both pay sub), nothing either player can legitimately buy from the company is going to increase end-game performance. This is why WoW isn't P2W.
Definitions of all kinds of gaming terms over the last 30 years have changed because of newbie understanding rampant in forums like twitter. "Zerg" apparently now means "a lot of people" instead of "many insufficiently powered people hoping to win via sheer attrition". "Troll" means whatever the utterer wants it to mean, with the opposing viewpoint simply conflicting their own.
Now, if you argue otherwise, people experienced in the matter will "look at you" (consider you?) strangely, shake their heads and for at least the immediate future consider further expressions from you with "that much less validity". If you're comfortable with knowledgeable people thinking you're silly, keep doing what you're doing.
Take two players, have one buy the game, and monthly sub. Have the other play for free... and compare the results. There will be a drastic difference in the player experience based on the money paid. This is P2W.
Not sure if serious....
Of course it is.
The free version of WoW let you level up to 20.
You have to pay to level to L90.
Last time i check, L90 has more power than L20. So it is p2w by the definition of many here.
So you agree that p2w is found everywhere in f2p games then. At least one person is willing to acknowledge it. It's a start.
P2W is found in ALL commercial games. It is only the games that dont take any money that are not P2W. It is only hyporcrits that choose to suppose that the commercial games that THEY like are not P2W.... and that those that they do not, are....
Just like everything in life, things are best done in moderation. To much any good thing can make it a bad thing. Providing something for money is generally good (and the definition of P2W), but too much of this can be a problem.
Originally posted by FinalFikus
All sub game and box sales are pay to win. Everyone pays the same solves that problem.
Now, onto unsolved problems...
Everyone doesnt pay the same... or get the same thing, even in box sales. This is especially true with subs. What would be more accurate is this: "P2P is extremely P2W... but it is an accepted part of the industry, so there isnt any need to discuss the obvious."
There is a reason it is accepted.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
P2W, the concept at heart, doesn't infer subscriptions.
If you're playing a game with a subscription model and you do not pay the subscription, you're not going to win at all because you won't be playing. (duh?).
If 2 people are playing WoW, and both are max level (so this presumes both pay sub), nothing either player can legitimately buy from the company is going to increase end-game performance. This is why WoW isn't P2W.
Definitions of all kinds of gaming terms over the last 30 years have changed because of newbie understanding rampant in forums like twitter. "Zerg" apparently now means "a lot of people" instead of "many insufficiently powered people hoping to win via sheer attrition". "Troll" means whatever the utterer wants it to mean, with the opposing viewpoint simply conflicting their own.
Now, if you argue otherwise, people experienced in the matter will "look at you" (consider you?) strangely, shake their heads and for at least the immediate future consider further expressions from you with "that much less validity". If you're comfortable with knowledgeable people thinking you're silly, keep doing what you're doing.
Yes we understand. Im not sure what your point is or if that last paragraph is supposed to mean something to someone, or who it's directed at, but the discussion is about p2w in free games still causing problems because it's not accepted by many.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing, not unlike i can enjoy 2 of the 28 or so heroes in Marvel Heroes for absolutely nothing.
Take two players, have one buy the game, and monthly sub. Have the other play for free... and compare the results. There will be a drastic difference in the player experience based on the money paid. This is P2W.
Not sure if serious....
Of course it is.
The free version of WoW let you level up to 20.
You have to pay to level to L90.
Last time i check, L90 has more power than L20. So it is p2w by the definition of many here.
So you agree that p2w is found everywhere in f2p games then. At least one person is willing to acknowledge it. It's a start.
Of course.
It is only fair that the whales, who subsidize the games, get to have some more power.
p2w is not a bad thing if it does not affect me in gameplay.
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
Lol .. you ran out of arguments and resort to "i say so"?
I know what .. i know the WoW starter edition is free .. right there on their website, and if you pay, you get more power. Which part of these facts you do not understand?
It's hard to draw the line between "convenience commodities" and "pay to win" when it comes to cash shops. I generally draw that line in a single, but wide concept: Items or perks that aid towards developing a character's maximum potential and offer an edge in competitive game-play. If they are obtainable only through real cash it's pay to win. In some cases, if those items are also obtainable through game-play, but require an indecent amount of time, I'll also consider it pay-to-win.
To me, the best example of what just crosses the line and is pay to win is found in Guild Wars 2, and more specifically, WvW. While it would seem that everyone fight fairly, it's been proven time and time again that the team that invests most real cash into bringing a myriad of generals or siege golems to the battlefield has a clear edge. These devices can be obtained through regular game-play, but it takes hours upon hours of farming to gather enough resources to build one, let alone 15 or 20 as you can see in some screenshots floating around. In that case, the team that pays real cash wins.
You can still get the golems if you forfeit your social life, work, girlfriend and sleep to save up resources for a month, then you can use 20 siege golems in a single WvW battle, but the amount of time required is indecent, and you can not do it every day, as someone who pays real cash can do.
Anything softer than that, to me is not Pay to Win. For example, XP potions, PvP point boosts, or buyable leveling gear are fine to me. What I really care about is at competitive level, when we are all at the apex of character progress and someone can get the edge over someone else because he's willing to spend real currency.
As everything, this is subjective and each person will find a different place to draw the Pay-to-Win line. This is, I guess, why developers have so hard time bringing a real working Free-to-Play model, and none has yet fully succeeded (bar LoL, which is not a mmo). I'm hoping Ever Quest Next will manage, though, but I'm not holding those hopes too high either.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
Lol .. you ran out of arguments and resort to "i say so"?
I know what .. i know the WoW starter edition is free .. right there on their website, and if you pay, you get more power. Which part of these facts you do not understand?
If, because I am relaying to you common sense, this equates to "because I say so", then yes.
edit: Because you're not arguing something empirical to some philosophical degree. It's like I am pointing to a chair, saying "that is a chair" and you are saying "but what if it's not really a chair". I guess as opposed to "chair" it's many things, but for the purpose of semantics we have a shared understanding of "chair", so when I say "sit on that chair", you don't sit on the dirty floor.
Take two players, have one buy the game, and monthly sub. Have the other play for free... and compare the results. There will be a drastic difference in the player experience based on the money paid. This is P2W.
Not sure if serious....
Of course it is.
The free version of WoW let you level up to 20.
You have to pay to level to L90.
Last time i check, L90 has more power than L20. So it is p2w by the definition of many here.
So you agree that p2w is found everywhere in f2p games then. At least one person is willing to acknowledge it. It's a start.
Of course.
It is only fair that the whales, who subsidize the games, get to have some more power.
p2w is not a bad thing if it does not affect me in gameplay.
Some people want an even as possible playing field in any game, that's just as valid as your wants and interests.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
But this has already been solved and accepted if true. Whatever you want to call it, it's not an issue.
The thread is about f2p and it's problems that are unsolved and those that won't debate the topic but instead claim superior mental capacity and dismiss.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
But this has already been solved and accepted if true. Whatever you want to call it, it's not an issue.
The thread is about f2p and it's problems that are unsolved and those that won't debate the topic but instead claim superior mental capacity and dismiss.
Well apparently for many people, in order for this type of discussion to have direction (forget resolution, heh) we need parameters because not everyone shares the same understanding of "f2p". Even a certain respected staff member on this forum slips up constantly on b2p vs f2p. You have people in this very discussion trying to argue WoW belongs in this because "it is f2p" when it isn't.
Once we have a solid consensus on what is f2p and what is not f2p, we can take the discussion further to "what is truly f2p, and what is masked f2p, but really p2w".
I lost my multiquote in the mayhem however here goes a short list of things that came to mind when catching up.
1) This thread was never about f2p games or not. It is about people mislabeling games as pay to win.
2) Charging for CONTENT (yes this includes shiny new classes that they spent thousands of man hours on creating for you) isn't p2w, its the price for the goods. If you don't want em don't buy em, farmers charge for corn.
3) Experience potions do not make you more powerful, they put you in a new tier faster. A level 30 who got there with an exp pot is just as powerful as a level 30 who got there without one. Experience potions could be considered to increase your overall maximum potential IF AND ONLY IF the game has NO CEILING.
4) All AAA MMORPG's have ceilings, its rarely more than 1-8 weeks of game play up for seasoned gamers. The top of this is what we refer to as "End Game"
5) If you can reach the same potential without spending the money than it is NOT p2w. It is only p2w if money is required of you to reach that cap.
(most of) The arguments against my sentiments here seem to be throwing a lot of words but not a lot of thought around. Very few specific examples, and a lot of broad spectrum faux analysis.
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
But this has already been solved and accepted if true. Whatever you want to call it, it's not an issue.
The thread is about f2p and it's problems that are unsolved and those that won't debate the topic but instead claim superior mental capacity and dismiss.
This thread may or may not be about F2P.... but it is clearly about P2W... and AAA games. That seems to be the definition exactly what P2P games are.... so why is this not about them?
I would agree that we could all conceed that P2P is P2W (it is basically the extreme example)... and that SOME F2P MIGHT be P2W... and some of these MIGHT be AAA titles. This leads two basic questions:
If P2P is the extreme case of P2W, what less extreme examples in F2P might also be P2W, and why?
WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing...
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
But this has already been solved and accepted if true. Whatever you want to call it, it's not an issue.
The thread is about f2p and it's problems that are unsolved and those that won't debate the topic but instead claim superior mental capacity and dismiss.
Well apparently for many people, in order for this type of discussion to have direction (forget resolution, heh) we need parameters because not everyone shares the same understanding of "f2p". Even a certain respected staff member on this forum slips up constantly on b2p vs f2p. You have people in this very discussion trying to argue WoW belongs in this because "it is f2p" when it isn't.
Once we have a solid consensus on what is f2p and what is not f2p, we can take the discussion further to "what is truly f2p, and what is masked f2p, but really p2w".
You can't have any discussion when the denial of p2w even existing is the brick wall you hit.
Is the rules of a game supposed to put fairness or access to all as a priority? Which is better for an Industry who makes games?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The thread is about f2p and it's problems that are unsolved and those that won't debate the topic but instead claim superior mental capacity and dismiss.
This thread may or may not be about F2P.... but it is clearly about P2W... and AAA games. That seems to be the definition exactly what P2P games are.... so why is this not about them?
- The thread is NOT about f2p, it's my thread, I know.
I would agree that we could all conceed that P2P is P2W (it is basically the extreme example)... and that SOME F2P MIGHT be P2W... and some of these MIGHT be AAA titles. This leads two basic questions:
- We do not all concede that p2p is p2w. That is an absurd notion that is nothing more than stingy and/or broke people complaining about being charged for goods. Remember the good ole days when if you wanted something you had to pay for it?
What is the definition of a AAA game?
read the thread or google --- nevermind i'll do it for you
AAA game, a lingo in the video game industry for games developed for major platforms with enormous marketing budgets.
This thread may or may not be about F2P.... but it is clearly about P2W... and AAA games. That seems to be the definition exactly what P2P games are.... so why is this not about them?
This, right here, is the point of view I'm interested in countering. Definitions of words can be nebulous anyway without purposefully forced inflection.
In spirit, the base concept differentiation is p2p, b2p, or f2p. The concept of "p2w" then is attributed across the board to all players participating in the shared model. You don't turn it "back on itself" and say "well if you have to pay at all it is p2w". This dismisses the relevance of a p2w argument entirely.
This thread may or may not be about F2P.... but it is clearly about P2W... and AAA games. That seems to be the definition exactly what P2P games are.... so why is this not about them?
This, right here, is the point of view I'm interested in countering. Definitions of words can be nebulous anyway without purposefully forced inflection.
In spirit, the base concept differentiation is p2p, b2p, or f2p. The concept of "p2w" then is attributed across the board to all players participating in the shared model. You don't turn it "back on itself" and say "well if you have to pay at all it is p2w". This dismisses the relevance of a p2w argument entirely.
I stated earlier in the thread that a general definition of P2W is trading real world money (Pay) for something that you or others consider valuable (Win). P2P is based on the premise that you give money for access to the game. This is the extreme of P2W, as it confers the most extreme advantage that any game can offer (the ability to play) for a direct payment(s) of real money. The sales slogan for the California Lottery was (is?) "You Can't Win if You Don't Play" which emphasizes the most basic element.
This thread may or may not be about F2P.... but it is clearly about P2W... and AAA games. That seems to be the definition exactly what P2P games are.... so why is this not about them?
This, right here, is the point of view I'm interested in countering. Definitions of words can be nebulous anyway without purposefully forced inflection.
In spirit, the base concept differentiation is p2p, b2p, or f2p. The concept of "p2w" then is attributed across the board to all players participating in the shared model. You don't turn it "back on itself" and say "well if you have to pay at all it is p2w". This dismisses the relevance of a p2w argument entirely.
I stated earlier in the thread that a general definition of P2W is trading real world money (Pay) for something that you or others consider valuable (Win). P2P is based on the premise that you give money for access to the game. This is the extreme of P2W, as it confers the most extreme advantage that any game can offer (the ability to play) for a direct payment(s) of real money. The sales slogan for the California Lottery was (is?) "You Can't Win if You Don't Play" which emphasizes the most basic element.
No. Just no.
You enter p2p knowing it's p2p and on that shared level of investment, and if someone can legitimately pay ( x ) dollars and have calculable advantage over another participant who does not, it is then p2w.
It is not somehow "super pay to win", just as the mistake between b2p and f2p, the latter lacking initial money investment, does not somehow make f2p "super free to play".
Comments
my own definition of P2W
by Da Skull
1) Items that progress one's character in a meaningful way that are not available without the item mall (in other words, the OP's Definition)
2) Class customization options that are BOTH (a) strictly superior to the ones offered at the basic level and (b) unavailable through non-paying means
3) the presence of a game mechanic that solely exists to have people go to the item shop to circumvent it (see also: allods online)
I agree with the OP (though not their tone). "p2w" that people complain about is much more often "pay for convenience" than it is "pay to win". but "p2w" is kind of a snarl word these days. of course if a game's developers want to eliminate this term being bandied about their game they can simply charge a subscription for their game and have zero item shop. Yanno, like these damn games used to be
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
I cant follow your logic. One game is a sub based mmorpg which is advertising with an endless trial and calling it "F2P" . Its a trial nothing more with the hope people will sub to the game after they reach lvl 20. The other games you are talking about offer a free to play model from the start and the whole game concept is based on it. WoW is not P2W its P2P, you have to pay a monthly sub if you want to enjoy it.....
All sub game and box sales are pay to win. Everyone pays the same solves that problem.
Now, onto unsolved problems...
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
P2W is found in ALL commercial games. It is only the games that dont take any money that are not P2W. It is only hyporcrits that choose to suppose that the commercial games that THEY like are not P2W.... and that those that they do not, are....
Just like everything in life, things are best done in moderation. To much any good thing can make it a bad thing. Providing something for money is generally good (and the definition of P2W), but too much of this can be a problem.
Everyone doesnt pay the same... or get the same thing, even in box sales. This is especially true with subs. What would be more accurate is this: "P2P is extremely P2W... but it is an accepted part of the industry, so there isnt any need to discuss the obvious."
P2W, the concept at heart, doesn't infer subscriptions.
If you're playing a game with a subscription model and you do not pay the subscription, you're not going to win at all because you won't be playing. (duh?).
If 2 people are playing WoW, and both are max level (so this presumes both pay sub), nothing either player can legitimately buy from the company is going to increase end-game performance. This is why WoW isn't P2W.
Definitions of all kinds of gaming terms over the last 30 years have changed because of newbie understanding rampant in forums like twitter. "Zerg" apparently now means "a lot of people" instead of "many insufficiently powered people hoping to win via sheer attrition". "Troll" means whatever the utterer wants it to mean, with the opposing viewpoint simply conflicting their own.
Now, if you argue otherwise, people experienced in the matter will "look at you" (consider you?) strangely, shake their heads and for at least the immediate future consider further expressions from you with "that much less validity". If you're comfortable with knowledgeable people thinking you're silly, keep doing what you're doing.
There is a reason it is accepted.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Yes we understand. Im not sure what your point is or if that last paragraph is supposed to mean something to someone, or who it's directed at, but the discussion is about p2w in free games still causing problems because it's not accepted by many.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
No i don't. I can enjoy all the early level fun up to L20 paying absolutely nothing, not unlike i can enjoy 2 of the 28 or so heroes in Marvel Heroes for absolutely nothing.
Of course.
It is only fair that the whales, who subsidize the games, get to have some more power.
p2w is not a bad thing if it does not affect me in gameplay.
That is a free trial, not a free-to-play game model. This is an example to which I referred in the last paragraph of my last post.
Additionally, TSW isn't f2p. It is b2p and still not p2w.
What is the difference? There is no trial period, you can go anywhere in the game, and just that you have less power. Sounds like F2P to me. It is exactly the same in STO .. less power, unlimited, and can go everywhere.
Heck, in fact, Blizz does not call it a trial. Blizz call it "The Starter Edition".
If you put my kid in front of it she'd call it "torture", as she doesn't like mmorpgs. Marketing people will call it whatever seems to gather interest and make the "classification" of such an account status seem more appealing.
It's a trial. I know it. You know it. You're arguing just to argue.
Lol .. you ran out of arguments and resort to "i say so"?
I know what .. i know the WoW starter edition is free .. right there on their website, and if you pay, you get more power. Which part of these facts you do not understand?
It's hard to draw the line between "convenience commodities" and "pay to win" when it comes to cash shops. I generally draw that line in a single, but wide concept: Items or perks that aid towards developing a character's maximum potential and offer an edge in competitive game-play. If they are obtainable only through real cash it's pay to win. In some cases, if those items are also obtainable through game-play, but require an indecent amount of time, I'll also consider it pay-to-win.
To me, the best example of what just crosses the line and is pay to win is found in Guild Wars 2, and more specifically, WvW. While it would seem that everyone fight fairly, it's been proven time and time again that the team that invests most real cash into bringing a myriad of generals or siege golems to the battlefield has a clear edge. These devices can be obtained through regular game-play, but it takes hours upon hours of farming to gather enough resources to build one, let alone 15 or 20 as you can see in some screenshots floating around. In that case, the team that pays real cash wins.
You can still get the golems if you forfeit your social life, work, girlfriend and sleep to save up resources for a month, then you can use 20 siege golems in a single WvW battle, but the amount of time required is indecent, and you can not do it every day, as someone who pays real cash can do.
Anything softer than that, to me is not Pay to Win. For example, XP potions, PvP point boosts, or buyable leveling gear are fine to me. What I really care about is at competitive level, when we are all at the apex of character progress and someone can get the edge over someone else because he's willing to spend real currency.
As everything, this is subjective and each person will find a different place to draw the Pay-to-Win line. This is, I guess, why developers have so hard time bringing a real working Free-to-Play model, and none has yet fully succeeded (bar LoL, which is not a mmo). I'm hoping Ever Quest Next will manage, though, but I'm not holding those hopes too high either.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
If, because I am relaying to you common sense, this equates to "because I say so", then yes.
edit: Because you're not arguing something empirical to some philosophical degree. It's like I am pointing to a chair, saying "that is a chair" and you are saying "but what if it's not really a chair". I guess as opposed to "chair" it's many things, but for the purpose of semantics we have a shared understanding of "chair", so when I say "sit on that chair", you don't sit on the dirty floor.
Some people want an even as possible playing field in any game, that's just as valid as your wants and interests.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
But this has already been solved and accepted if true. Whatever you want to call it, it's not an issue.
The thread is about f2p and it's problems that are unsolved and those that won't debate the topic but instead claim superior mental capacity and dismiss.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Well apparently for many people, in order for this type of discussion to have direction (forget resolution, heh) we need parameters because not everyone shares the same understanding of "f2p". Even a certain respected staff member on this forum slips up constantly on b2p vs f2p. You have people in this very discussion trying to argue WoW belongs in this because "it is f2p" when it isn't.
Once we have a solid consensus on what is f2p and what is not f2p, we can take the discussion further to "what is truly f2p, and what is masked f2p, but really p2w".
I lost my multiquote in the mayhem however here goes a short list of things that came to mind when catching up.
1) This thread was never about f2p games or not. It is about people mislabeling games as pay to win.
2) Charging for CONTENT (yes this includes shiny new classes that they spent thousands of man hours on creating for you) isn't p2w, its the price for the goods. If you don't want em don't buy em, farmers charge for corn.
3) Experience potions do not make you more powerful, they put you in a new tier faster. A level 30 who got there with an exp pot is just as powerful as a level 30 who got there without one. Experience potions could be considered to increase your overall maximum potential IF AND ONLY IF the game has NO CEILING.
4) All AAA MMORPG's have ceilings, its rarely more than 1-8 weeks of game play up for seasoned gamers. The top of this is what we refer to as "End Game"
5) If you can reach the same potential without spending the money than it is NOT p2w. It is only p2w if money is required of you to reach that cap.
(most of) The arguments against my sentiments here seem to be throwing a lot of words but not a lot of thought around. Very few specific examples, and a lot of broad spectrum faux analysis.
This thread may or may not be about F2P.... but it is clearly about P2W... and AAA games. That seems to be the definition exactly what P2P games are.... so why is this not about them?
I would agree that we could all conceed that P2P is P2W (it is basically the extreme example)... and that SOME F2P MIGHT be P2W... and some of these MIGHT be AAA titles. This leads two basic questions:
If P2P is the extreme case of P2W, what less extreme examples in F2P might also be P2W, and why?
What is the definition of a AAA game?
You can't have any discussion when the denial of p2w even existing is the brick wall you hit.
Is the rules of a game supposed to put fairness or access to all as a priority? Which is better for an Industry who makes games?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
This, right here, is the point of view I'm interested in countering. Definitions of words can be nebulous anyway without purposefully forced inflection.
In spirit, the base concept differentiation is p2p, b2p, or f2p. The concept of "p2w" then is attributed across the board to all players participating in the shared model. You don't turn it "back on itself" and say "well if you have to pay at all it is p2w". This dismisses the relevance of a p2w argument entirely.
I stated earlier in the thread that a general definition of P2W is trading real world money (Pay) for something that you or others consider valuable (Win). P2P is based on the premise that you give money for access to the game. This is the extreme of P2W, as it confers the most extreme advantage that any game can offer (the ability to play) for a direct payment(s) of real money. The sales slogan for the California Lottery was (is?) "You Can't Win if You Don't Play" which emphasizes the most basic element.
No. Just no.
You enter p2p knowing it's p2p and on that shared level of investment, and if someone can legitimately pay ( x ) dollars and have calculable advantage over another participant who does not, it is then p2w.
It is not somehow "super pay to win", just as the mistake between b2p and f2p, the latter lacking initial money investment, does not somehow make f2p "super free to play".