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".
What you are saying is that if you agree/accept that you have to pay to win, then it isnt pay to win. Based on that, you are calling P2P not P2W, and F2P P2W... regardless of any actual exchange of money for value. Your basis of aurgument is not about P2W... but about what you believe to be acceptable (i.e. everything you dont agree with is P2W, everything you do agree with is not).
In my example, the CA Lottery is P2W (heck, that is thier slogan), but using your rules, it would not be....
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.
Right. That's where the argument there ends.
Now, if you make a game, which has rules, and you can pay to bypass or bend those rules, you are paying to cheat. The reasons people have problems with it can be discusses instead of the distractions. Maybe a solution can be found....I don't know.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
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".
What you are saying is that if you agree/accept that you have to pay to win, then it isnt pay to win. Based on that, you are calling P2P not P2W, and F2P P2W... regardless of any actual exchange of money for value. Your basis of aurgument is not about P2W... but about what you believe to be acceptable (i.e. everything you dont agree with is P2W, everything you do agree with is not).
Pay to play games can be pay to win. As a matter of fact it's a constant argument from the playerbase, what cash shop items, however mundane, may lead to what one can consider "advantage".
I'm not really in the manner of finding one or the other acceptable. You are mistaken. I am corralling your intentional manipulation of purported understanding, and I'm about to quit and just let you act ignorant.
I guess it really depends on the definition of pay to win.
In my view this only applies to anything that is competitive. To gain competitive advantage by paying for it rather than playing for it is my definition of pay to win.
That really throws anything pve related out as it isn't competitive.
So now think of any pvp games or pvp part of a game that you can gain competitive advantage by purchasing something in a cash shop, if you find one then that is your pay to win game.
A majority of posters seem to have focused on "P2W doesn't exist" and missed "in AAA MMOs". I say that because they keep bringing up games as examples of P2W which are not AAA titles.
Yes WoT had gold ammo, which could only be gotten in the cash shop. But is WoT a AAA title? NO! /Argument fail. I too can name a dozen or more games that objectively are "pay to win". But not one of those games are AAA titles, and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
For the sake of argument: the OP stated that he plays to reach end game. And that pretty much everything from L1 to lvl cap (or close to it) is irrelevant (to him), because none of it makes a whit of difference once you reach end game. And I don't disagree with that at all.
But, here's the thing; not everyone plays games just to reach end game. Some people, myself included, play the full game for enjoyment. It's not all about reaching end game for the pvp or raids. It's about all the stuff you can do while reaching that goal. In every game I've played I've found players who consistently hang around mid levels. Why? Because they're having fun at that level! So your argument that being able to buy better equipment than can be gotten in game at mid levels as "not P2W" is a fallacy. If a player is a better player (can press buttons faster, understands builds better, etc) but is consistently beaten in pvp by a player who simply bought the "best equipment" available for that level range; then the game most certainly is: P2W. Add in open world pvp and this aspect of P2W comes even more to the fore. If I can't (or have a very hard time) leveling because I'm easy meat for cash shop players then they've won, because I've quit (the game).
Originally posted by 123443211234 Any cash shop that sells ANYTHING that gives one player an in game advantage over another player would mean the game is P2W. Now of course there are many different levels of what can be sold and just how badly P2W is in any one game, but the fact is you still bought an advantage that another player didn't.
Yes. We would all agree with that.
The trouble is we don't agree on what is an advantage.
I don't think leveling faster is an advantage because at any particular level they can't do anything more or better than other. Other people say they are.
I personaly define advantage as if someone is the same level (and preferably the same class/skills for easy comparison) as me can they do something I can't or be more efficient in whatever they are doing then me because of something they bought that is not available to me in the game at that level.
His statement is just semi incorrect. It isn't whether or not the advantage is over another player, but if the advantage helps a player achieve their goal.
To me that isn't necessarily p2w. If their goal is to get to max level, and they bought their way there, well at that level they can't do anything I can't so it's not p2w.
See I would actually consider experience boosters as p2w. I understand your leveling power analogy but that is only half the story. The reason being that endgame is everyone's goal and that is where the "good" and "valuable" loot and items is. So if you get to the "good" stuff weeks or months before me that is a huge advantage as now you have access and CONTROL over better items. You can justify the scale of p2w however you want, its still p2w.
But you might (actually would likely) get to that stuff weeks or months ahead of me anyway so that doesn't change anything. You might play longer, or just be naturally better. Getting there ahead of someone, but not being able to do anything different than anyone else when you are there, to me is not p2w.
What if I started a year after the game launched, there are thousands of people ahead of me. To me the speed that someone progresses through the game is not p2w.
Thats fine that it doesn't meet your definition of p2w, it does meet mine though. I don't consider it that bad or terrible or anything, but I do consider it a p2w mechanic. There are far worse p2w items and mechanics that exist than xp boosters like in the Perfect World Entertainment games where you can pretty much use your credit card to boost your characters stats to a godlike level and then go pvp.....
Then like all other posters said beforehand, since you bought the game a month or a day before I did, you just paid to win.
Because with your definition, since you got a day head start ahead of me, You just paid to win the game a day before I did.
When you think about it that way, XP potions are not pay to win.
MMORPG is a game to be played with different players that buys the game at different time. You can play the game a whole year before I did, and you don't have any thing I cant get at your level then its not pay to win
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Mattatron 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".
Mattatron is correct; it is a free trial and has nothing to do with F2P. It is best to ignore the nonsensical blabbering of others. Some rediculous arguments being tossed around in this thread.
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
That is not the argument I am going against here, mark 2 people who only gathered a broad comprehension of the OP. The argument you speak of is them complaining that the company should offer more free content/access. The argument I am speaking of is when gamers claim that superfluous (extra) money is needed past the gateway cost of a game (be it subscription, cost of the product itself whatever) to achieve potential.
OP you need to post a link to these arguments where people are claiming certain games are P2W, to which you are referring to.
How do you expect anyone to accurately weigh in on this topic, when all we have to go on are these imaginary arguments inside your head?
The problem you are having here guys is that you are all trying to forward your subjective definitions of "win" (in an MMO context) as an objective definition then seem surprised when others resist that definition. Properly speaking an MMO (of the traditional sort) can't be "won" because there are no defined victory conditions by the developer and no definate end to the game.
You can objectively win a tennis match, or an FPS match or an RTS game, even one played against an A.I. In traditional MMO that sort of objective victory doesn't exist. The players themeselves designate thier own goals and determine whether they've met them or not. That's the closest such a game can get to "win"....and that IS an entirely subjective measure.
That doesn't mean that "Pay-2-Win" is not a usefull term. It is simply a short-hand way for the player to express thier OPINION that payment of real cash has too much of an effect on gameplay. That doesn't mean another player will agree with that. However as players we all like to express our opinions on different games....and if you happen to know that your tastes run similar to another player it CAN be usefull information as well. It's like saying something is "spicey" or "bland".....it's a subjective opinion but it can carry value if you know how the individuals tastes compare to your own.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 The problem you are having here guys is that you are all trying to forward your subjective definitions of "win" (in an MMO context) as an objective definition then seem surprised when others resist that definition. Properly speaking an MMO (of the traditional sort) can't be "won" because there are no defined victory conditions by the developer and no definate end to the game.
I think P2W is simply a concise and easy to remember buzzword. But if you want to change the label to "pay for in-game advantage that those who do not pay either cannot get, or can get only after considerable effort; " you have my vote.
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
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 The problem you are having here guys is that you are all trying to forward your subjective definitions of "win" (in an MMO context) as an objective definition then seem surprised when others resist that definition. Properly speaking an MMO (of the traditional sort) can't be "won" because there are no defined victory conditions by the developer and no definate end to the game.
I think P2W is simply a concise and easy to remember buzzword. But if you want to change the label to "pay for in-game advantage that those who do not pay either cannot get, or can get only after considerable effort; " you have my vote.
I like the term someone else said earlier. Pay 2 accelerate. It tells me exactly what it is, and imo doesn't have any positive or negative connotations of "win or lose" associated with it.
So xp boosters are P2A. PTA - oh god not more parents
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Well, p2w is a derogatory term. It begs a certain condemnation that "the integrity of the system is compromised for the advance of company profit", where "integrity" is based on "success capacity" for any individual participating in the same "base payment model". It is preferential treatment when you're led to believe "all other things are equal".
It takes a pretty extreme example to get my panties in a bunch, but ultimately it's an ethical concern by which a player might likely opt to not participate in the product at all. If WoW's cash shop suddenly started selling $200 Sword of complete fire resistance (which you can't get in game), or $500 Hat of immunity to magic in pvp (of course not in game), or $1000 Relic of "even if your raid party dies, the raid mob dies and you get full loot", people would riot in the streets of Orgrimmar.
Selling "reduced cooldown between end-game encounters" so a group of players can clown encounters and have 2 months worth of stuff in 2 days is p2w. Selling faction or keys to access end game encounters (instead of having to go through motions) is p2w.
I'd like to think I'm an "ok" player and could supercede some amount of perceived imbalance, but if someone is handed something, especially something I can't earn in game, on a silver platter for ( x ) dollars in a game's legitimate transaction, I might cry foul and quit, just as most people would, or I might shell out the extra $100 or $200 if I anticipate this is where this ends. Thing is, once they have you like that, it probably won't be where it ends and a month later, following that method, inevitably someone will pay more and because of that will achieve an insurmountable status. Then I'd quit, mad at myself instead of just at the game designers.
Comments
What you are saying is that if you agree/accept that you have to pay to win, then it isnt pay to win. Based on that, you are calling P2P not P2W, and F2P P2W... regardless of any actual exchange of money for value. Your basis of aurgument is not about P2W... but about what you believe to be acceptable (i.e. everything you dont agree with is P2W, everything you do agree with is not).
In my example, the CA Lottery is P2W (heck, that is thier slogan), but using your rules, it would not be....
Right. That's where the argument there ends.
Now, if you make a game, which has rules, and you can pay to bypass or bend those rules, you are paying to cheat. The reasons people have problems with it can be discusses instead of the distractions. Maybe a solution can be found....I don't know.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Pay to play games can be pay to win. As a matter of fact it's a constant argument from the playerbase, what cash shop items, however mundane, may lead to what one can consider "advantage".
I'm not really in the manner of finding one or the other acceptable. You are mistaken. I am corralling your intentional manipulation of purported understanding, and I'm about to quit and just let you act ignorant.
I guess it really depends on the definition of pay to win.
In my view this only applies to anything that is competitive. To gain competitive advantage by paying for it rather than playing for it is my definition of pay to win.
That really throws anything pve related out as it isn't competitive.
So now think of any pvp games or pvp part of a game that you can gain competitive advantage by purchasing something in a cash shop, if you find one then that is your pay to win game.
A majority of posters seem to have focused on "P2W doesn't exist" and missed "in AAA MMOs". I say that because they keep bringing up games as examples of P2W which are not AAA titles.
Yes WoT had gold ammo, which could only be gotten in the cash shop. But is WoT a AAA title? NO! /Argument fail. I too can name a dozen or more games that objectively are "pay to win". But not one of those games are AAA titles, and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
For the sake of argument: the OP stated that he plays to reach end game. And that pretty much everything from L1 to lvl cap (or close to it) is irrelevant (to him), because none of it makes a whit of difference once you reach end game. And I don't disagree with that at all.
But, here's the thing; not everyone plays games just to reach end game. Some people, myself included, play the full game for enjoyment. It's not all about reaching end game for the pvp or raids. It's about all the stuff you can do while reaching that goal. In every game I've played I've found players who consistently hang around mid levels. Why? Because they're having fun at that level! So your argument that being able to buy better equipment than can be gotten in game at mid levels as "not P2W" is a fallacy. If a player is a better player (can press buttons faster, understands builds better, etc) but is consistently beaten in pvp by a player who simply bought the "best equipment" available for that level range; then the game most certainly is: P2W. Add in open world pvp and this aspect of P2W comes even more to the fore. If I can't (or have a very hard time) leveling because I'm easy meat for cash shop players then they've won, because I've quit (the game).
Then like all other posters said beforehand, since you bought the game a month or a day before I did, you just paid to win.
Because with your definition, since you got a day head start ahead of me, You just paid to win the game a day before I did.
When you think about it that way, XP potions are not pay to win.
MMORPG is a game to be played with different players that buys the game at different time. You can play the game a whole year before I did, and you don't have any thing I cant get at your level then its not pay to win
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
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".
Mattatron is correct; it is a free trial and has nothing to do with F2P. It is best to ignore the nonsensical blabbering of others. Some rediculous arguments being tossed around in this thread.
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
OP you need to post a link to these arguments where people are claiming certain games are P2W, to which you are referring to.
How do you expect anyone to accurately weigh in on this topic, when all we have to go on are these imaginary arguments inside your head?
The problem you are having here guys is that you are all trying to forward your subjective definitions of "win" (in an MMO context) as an objective definition then seem surprised when others resist that definition. Properly speaking an MMO (of the traditional sort) can't be "won" because there are no defined victory conditions by the developer and no definate end to the game.
You can objectively win a tennis match, or an FPS match or an RTS game, even one played against an A.I. In traditional MMO that sort of objective victory doesn't exist. The players themeselves designate thier own goals and determine whether they've met them or not. That's the closest such a game can get to "win"....and that IS an entirely subjective measure.
That doesn't mean that "Pay-2-Win" is not a usefull term. It is simply a short-hand way for the player to express thier OPINION that payment of real cash has too much of an effect on gameplay. That doesn't mean another player will agree with that. However as players we all like to express our opinions on different games....and if you happen to know that your tastes run similar to another player it CAN be usefull information as well. It's like saying something is "spicey" or "bland".....it's a subjective opinion but it can carry value if you know how the individuals tastes compare to your own.
I think P2W is simply a concise and easy to remember buzzword. But if you want to change the label to "pay for in-game advantage that those who do not pay either cannot get, or can get only after considerable effort; " you have my vote.
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 like the term someone else said earlier. Pay 2 accelerate. It tells me exactly what it is, and imo doesn't have any positive or negative connotations of "win or lose" associated with it.
So xp boosters are P2A. PTA - oh god not more parents
Well, p2w is a derogatory term. It begs a certain condemnation that "the integrity of the system is compromised for the advance of company profit", where "integrity" is based on "success capacity" for any individual participating in the same "base payment model". It is preferential treatment when you're led to believe "all other things are equal".
It takes a pretty extreme example to get my panties in a bunch, but ultimately it's an ethical concern by which a player might likely opt to not participate in the product at all. If WoW's cash shop suddenly started selling $200 Sword of complete fire resistance (which you can't get in game), or $500 Hat of immunity to magic in pvp (of course not in game), or $1000 Relic of "even if your raid party dies, the raid mob dies and you get full loot", people would riot in the streets of Orgrimmar.
Selling "reduced cooldown between end-game encounters" so a group of players can clown encounters and have 2 months worth of stuff in 2 days is p2w. Selling faction or keys to access end game encounters (instead of having to go through motions) is p2w.
I'd like to think I'm an "ok" player and could supercede some amount of perceived imbalance, but if someone is handed something, especially something I can't earn in game, on a silver platter for ( x ) dollars in a game's legitimate transaction, I might cry foul and quit, just as most people would, or I might shell out the extra $100 or $200 if I anticipate this is where this ends. Thing is, once they have you like that, it probably won't be where it ends and a month later, following that method, inevitably someone will pay more and because of that will achieve an insurmountable status. Then I'd quit, mad at myself instead of just at the game designers.