Howdy, Stranger!

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

We Paid to Win & Lost - MMORPG.com

13

Comments

  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,149
    Paying to access (subscriptions) is not the same as paying to win. 

    Second, as others have already stated, the fact that some people were paying 2 win in old school games by engaging with 3rd party rmt services (gold sellers etc) is also no reason to start allowing p2w in your games. It was cheating before, why would you want to start allowing cheating now?


    I fully understand and appreciate that developers (well, probably driven by publishers rather than devs) need to monetise their games and someone up top will always be pushing for more and more revenue. However, there are ways to increase revenue without those revenue streams directly affecting the gameplay experience. There is simply no upside for the gamer in a p2w situation. 

    I will agree that the situation is partially our fault for continuing to condone this behaviour. I personally do not condone it, I've never spent a penny in a cash shop and tend to avoid f2p games altogether. Even games that were sub and turned f2p I tend to leave quickly as I just won't support shady business practices. Longest I held out was LotRO when that turned F2P - the initial conversion was OK and pretty ethical, but it got steadily worse and coincided with a drop in quality of content. 
    MadFrenchie
  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,388
    People don't want that "even if real life is p2w" exactly for that reason. If you have a hard job and get stressed you would be some crazy problematic person to play games to get stressed - You would play games to have fun, distract, relax.

    Games are suppose to fall under this ritualistic cycle of environment in which people go and isolate themselves of the world and its obligations, but I'm not talking about escapism - I'm just saying that no matter the game (soccer, Halo, Hearthstone) when you are there you are no other place. When you gather your friends to play soccer you go to this sacred zone in which your boss is not there, that yelling crazy client is not there - and again; it's not that everyone participating wants to forget those things: It's just those aspects of life is not what they want to meet there.

    And just like any ritualistic act you come out of it transformed, even if in a small way. You relax, you bond with your friends or family, you laugh, you cry. That's the whole point.

    To talk about p2w in games I think the most important thing to notice, about me, is that I seek gaming for challenge. I have fun challenging myself (not others), to improve myself: Get a better time, take less damage, get more kills, get more objective points. So, I can't have fun in a game in which the core game design goes around improving yourself by paying just because most of them, to make sure people will spend their money make it part of the core design: To progress in power real life money is involved - so in most cases (at least the ones I dislike) it means that I can't challenge myself to become better than a certain threshold because the game was designed that way. That's not the experience I seek when I play soccer with friends, when I play monopoly with my family, when I play BroForce with my brother, when I play online games with my friends that moved to another town - you get the point.

    And a quick note: I think you are wrong about sports in general being p2w. I would say the management aspect of most sports is related to mechanics in which money can assure a certain quality standard to your team, making sure that winning probability is higher, but I live in a small ass forgotten town with a broken soccer team (Novo Hamburgo, like New Hamburg from Germany) and we just won here against all big teams.

    The reason is very simple: The game itself is not p2w. The mechanics surrounding the conditions of the match are p2w.

    And like that many games in which gives you boosters to level up quickly or end dungeons quickly don't bother me, if there is nothing making your player skills better than mine in flat numbers.

    You could argue that a highly paid soccer players is better than average joe and that's p2w. But it is not: The same way a better player in certain game is better than another for it's own merit. Some are paid to play the entire day and some play few hours a week. Just like some people play soccer everyday after job and some don't - making the latter bad at it, out of shape, or amazingly good because of innate talent.

    To my point: In a 1v1 comparison, talent is not p2w. Personal skill, player skill, regardless the sport, is not p2w - it's just player skill.

    PC specs are also not a part of p2w scenario, they are minimum requirements, and we are talking about PC here, if you lower down your settings having the requirements you'll reach the same amount of fps needed to properly engage in a game than someone else with high end PC playing on ultra. Your game will look shitty, but beauty is not a requirement for gaming - I mean, look at PU's:B.
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,881
    Cash shop cancer has won and MMOs are now casinos.

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Nyctelios said:
    People don't want that "even if real life is p2w" exactly for that reason. If you have a hard job and get stressed you would be some crazy problematic person to play games to get stressed - You would play games to have fun, distract, relax.

    Games are suppose to fall under this ritualistic cycle of environment in which people go and isolate themselves of the world and its obligations, but I'm not talking about escapism - I'm just saying that no matter the game (soccer, Halo, Hearthstone) when you are there you are no other place. When you gather your friends to play soccer you go to this sacred zone in which your boss is not there, that yelling crazy client is not there - and again; it's not that everyone participating wants to forget those things: It's just those aspects of life is not what they want to meet there.


    *********Mobile site still needs some work******


    This is precisely the reason F2P cash shop games are detrimental to the experience.  They bring socioeconomic stratification into gaming.  Moreover, they bring it into RPG gaming that's supposed to be the player enjoying a world apart from reality, where you're just having fun, not keeping up with the Joneses.

    Whether someone uses MMORPGs for escapism or not, bringing such stratification into the industry is not healthy for the consumer base in reference to the overall gameplay experience.

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,512
    Paying to access (subscriptions) is not the same as paying to win.
    Opinion presented as fact again ignoring the root issue. You people will never get out of pay to win hell until you start being honest with yourselves. But keep pointing fingers and making excuses.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,512
    cloud3431 said:
    it's not like p2w hasn't been around since the beginning of gaming. you pay to win the game.......i really don't get why it's a bad thing for f2p games to want to make money to keep their game alive for thousands of players. or even b2p having a cash shop. the base price isn't enough to keep it going for years maybe 10s of years. if you're planning on play a game for free, it shouldn't be a problem for others to pay to keep the game alive for you to play for free. most overlook(don't know how either) this fact. but don't whine about the ones that spend any kind of money, obviously they're going to get an advantage(if they even do get one), they paid for it. which, makes you able to play for free even longer. gotta love when people overlook this simple thing.
    What about people who don't want to play for free but want an even playing field?  How'd you miss such a "simple thing"?

    You miss the root issue so it can't be that hard. You're living in the same lifeboat and it's still sinking.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 6,997
    Elvoc said:
    This is a sad truth, really miss the days of the Everquest and WOW pay plans where it was one payment a month and you knew what you were getting and you didn't pay again until a major release of content came out and then you paid your $25 to $50 expansion fee and possibly got a free month. It was so much easier and no guess work.
    I paid more to play EQ1 and WoW than all other games combined...To me P2P was significantly more expensive than F2P or B2P ever were..I guess i am in the minority but my pocketbook welcomed f2p with open arms....I often felt ripped off having to pay a sub fee but we literally had few other options back then.....
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,470
    edited July 2017
    Tim Eisen what a jaded post!  Why post if you are going to be so negative?

    Some of you are missing the point.  Just because they have a shop in game does not mean it is pay-to-win.  Pay-to-win means that something in the cash shop exists that gives you a major advantage in gameplay, especially in pvp.  Mounts, pets and costumes don't count.

    Games need to make money and if I am playing one, I have no objection to spending money on it to support it.  There are a lot of games where I have no issue with spending money in their shop.

    The worse thing I find in these games that have RNG boxes that can occasionally contain gameplay altering items.  At that point the game becomes a gambling casino and I have no interest of ever playing it.
    Torval
  • TimEisenTimEisen ColumnistMember EpicPosts: 3,292
    Ozmodan said:
    Tim Eisen what a jaded post!  Why post if you are going to be so negative?

    Some of you are missing the point.  Just because they have a shop in game does not mean it is pay-to-win.  Pay-to-win means that something in the cash shop exists that gives you a major advantage in gameplay, especially in pvp.  Mounts, pets and costumes don't count.

    Games need to make money and if I am playing one, I have no objection to spending money on it to support it.  There are a lot of games where I have no issue with spending money in their shop.

    The worse thing I find in these games that have RNG boxes that can occasionally contain gameplay altering items.  At that point the game becomes a gambling casino and I have no interest of ever playing it.
    Really? I saw what I was writing as an observation of reality, neither positive nor negative if not bordering on hopeful. /shrug 
    I used to role-play a Warrior Priest now I role-play a writer.
  • GavyneGavyne Member UncommonPosts: 116
    edited July 2017
    Elvoc said:
    This is a sad truth, really miss the days of the Everquest and WOW pay plans where it was one payment a month and you knew what you were getting and you didn't pay again until a major release of content came out and then you paid your $25 to $50 expansion fee and possibly got a free month. It was so much easier and no guess work.
    I paid more to play EQ1 and WoW than all other games combined...To me P2P was significantly more expensive than F2P or B2P ever were..I guess i am in the minority but my pocketbook welcomed f2p with open arms....I often felt ripped off having to pay a sub fee but we literally had few other options back then.....
    This depends on if you are someone who spends money or not.  Smed once said for SOE games, back when they were still around, only 10% of the playerbase spent money in F2P games.  So pretty much the rest of the 90% of the players are just there to keep the 10% happy and paying.

    If you don't spend much in games at all and you are the type that will do everything you can to avoid paying a dime, then you're with the segment that likely are happy games are F2P now.  But for people who do/did spend money in games, F2P games these days likely cost more than back when they were subscription based.

    For me personally, I've enjoyed subscription based games back when they had quality.  WoW was a good example of that early on, you paid monthly and they gave you all the content you could consume.  I've collected more pets, mounts, and cosmetic items in WoW than any other MMO's combined.  For my g/f and I this was a huge plus, because we play MMO's for these fun things.  

    Now a days with F2P games, you have to spend money to buy pets, mounts, and cosmetic items.  Even EQ once they transitioned into cash shop based, they took more and more content out of their expansions and placed them on cash shops.  So rather than questing & farming for pets, mounts, and other fluff, you had to spend cash for them.

    While these things aren't really P2W, there are always things that cross the line a bit.  In EQ they sold power items after they promised they wouldn't.  In BDO someone who spends money gets to loot better with higher tier pets, make enhancing gear cheaper, and they get access to things like camo outfits which do give you advantages no matter how much people tried to deny that fact.
    Post edited by Gavyne on

    Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO
    Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,570
    Torval said:
    Paying to access (subscriptions) is not the same as paying to win.
    Opinion presented as fact again ignoring the root issue. You people will never get out of pay to win hell until you start being honest with yourselves. But keep pointing fingers and making excuses.
    You mind repeating what you see as the root issue?

    Cliff Notes version is fine.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,944
    Torval said:
    cloud3431 said:
    it's not like p2w hasn't been around since the beginning of gaming. you pay to win the game.......i really don't get why it's a bad thing for f2p games to want to make money to keep their game alive for thousands of players. or even b2p having a cash shop. the base price isn't enough to keep it going for years maybe 10s of years. if you're planning on play a game for free, it shouldn't be a problem for others to pay to keep the game alive for you to play for free. most overlook(don't know how either) this fact. but don't whine about the ones that spend any kind of money, obviously they're going to get an advantage(if they even do get one), they paid for it. which, makes you able to play for free even longer. gotta love when people overlook this simple thing.
    What about people who don't want to play for free but want an even playing field?  How'd you miss such a "simple thing"?

    You miss the root issue so it can't be that hard. You're living in the same lifeboat and it's still sinking.
    Pot meet kettle

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,944
    TimEisen said:
    Ozmodan said:
    Tim Eisen what a jaded post!  Why post if you are going to be so negative?

    Some of you are missing the point.  Just because they have a shop in game does not mean it is pay-to-win.  Pay-to-win means that something in the cash shop exists that gives you a major advantage in gameplay, especially in pvp.  Mounts, pets and costumes don't count.

    Games need to make money and if I am playing one, I have no objection to spending money on it to support it.  There are a lot of games where I have no issue with spending money in their shop.

    The worse thing I find in these games that have RNG boxes that can occasionally contain gameplay altering items.  At that point the game becomes a gambling casino and I have no interest of ever playing it.
    Really? I saw what I was writing as an observation of reality, neither positive nor negative if not bordering on hopeful. /shrug 
    Come on guys.  Tim is the least negative person on the site!

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    cloud3431 said:
    it's not like p2w hasn't been around since the beginning of gaming. you pay to win the game.......i really don't get why it's a bad thing for f2p games to want to make money to keep their game alive for thousands of players. or even b2p having a cash shop. the base price isn't enough to keep it going for years maybe 10s of years. if you're planning on play a game for free, it shouldn't be a problem for others to pay to keep the game alive for you to play for free. most overlook(don't know how either) this fact. but don't whine about the ones that spend any kind of money, obviously they're going to get an advantage(if they even do get one), they paid for it. which, makes you able to play for free even longer. gotta love when people overlook this simple thing.
    What about people who don't want to play for free but want an even playing field?  How'd you miss such a "simple thing"?

    You miss the root issue so it can't be that hard. You're living in the same lifeboat and it's still sinking.
    Pot meet kettle
    While I can't comment on the pot or the kettle in this instance, I think that it's, again, worth noting the unfortunate side effect of microtransactions and RNG loot boxes, no matter the underlying root issue: it brings socioeconomic stratification into MMORPGs.  That's not what this genre was ever about.  Indeed, it's not what gaming itself was ever about, specifically not role playing games.

    No matter the reasoning for it, it's created a hugely detrimental issue in and of itself.  Subscriptions do not, even if the games are created with maximizing subscription times in mind.  That reason alone makes it worth it, in my opinion, to move away from the system as quickly as humanly possible.
    IselinXodicSlapshot1188

    image
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    I keep getting a kick out of people complaining about cash shops, loot boxes and microtransactions in the games they choose to play while ignoring statements like I am about to make.

    'games i play do not  have those things'
    TamanousKyleran

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,770
    SEANMCAD said:
    I keep getting a kick out of people complaining about cash shops, loot boxes and microtransactions in the games they choose to play while ignoring statements like I am about to make.

    'games i play do not  have those things'
    Yes we know Sean, you like special games.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,993
    SEANMCAD said:
    I keep getting a kick out of people complaining about cash shops, loot boxes and microtransactions in the games they choose to play while ignoring statements like I am about to make.

    'games i play do not  have those things'
    That is what I have been stressing. The only answer is boycotting this form of RMT abuse. Developers now view video games as gambling vendor machines. They are part of casino expansion yet without regulation. This is a total cash grab and western gaming is only going to get worse:

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-07-18-how-gacha-can-benefit-western-game-developers

    Anyone supporting this is part of the corruption. Complacent ignorance.

    This is a battle to save the industry. I am not overstating this.

    You stay sassy!

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,512
    Kyleran said:
    Torval said:
    Paying to access (subscriptions) is not the same as paying to win.
    Opinion presented as fact again ignoring the root issue. You people will never get out of pay to win hell until you start being honest with yourselves. But keep pointing fingers and making excuses.
    You mind repeating what you see as the root issue?

    Cliff Notes version is fine.
    Monetizing progression.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Tamanous said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I keep getting a kick out of people complaining about cash shops, loot boxes and microtransactions in the games they choose to play while ignoring statements like I am about to make.

    'games i play do not  have those things'
    That is what I have been stressing. The only answer is boycotting this form of RMT abuse. Developers now view video games as gambling vendor machines. They are part of casino expansion yet without regulation. This is a total cash grab and western gaming is only going to get worse:

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-07-18-how-gacha-can-benefit-western-game-developers

    Anyone supporting this is part of the corruption. Complacent ignorance.

    This is a battle to save the industry. I am not overstating this.

    well to be clear that is not my position.

    I think gambling in a game is fine. I cant justify arguing that a 'game' that involves 'dice' should not be in a 'game' that has RNG.

    HOWEVER, games I like to play and do play and enjoy play and having been playing and wouldnt mind sharing a list of why its fun do not have these features so its all coool

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,512
    edited July 2017
    Torval said:
    cloud3431 said:
    it's not like p2w hasn't been around since the beginning of gaming. you pay to win the game.......i really don't get why it's a bad thing for f2p games to want to make money to keep their game alive for thousands of players. or even b2p having a cash shop. the base price isn't enough to keep it going for years maybe 10s of years. if you're planning on play a game for free, it shouldn't be a problem for others to pay to keep the game alive for you to play for free. most overlook(don't know how either) this fact. but don't whine about the ones that spend any kind of money, obviously they're going to get an advantage(if they even do get one), they paid for it. which, makes you able to play for free even longer. gotta love when people overlook this simple thing.
    What about people who don't want to play for free but want an even playing field?  How'd you miss such a "simple thing"?

    You miss the root issue so it can't be that hard. You're living in the same lifeboat and it's still sinking.
    Pot meet kettle
    While I can't comment on the pot or the kettle in this instance, I think that it's, again, worth noting the unfortunate side effect of microtransactions and RNG loot boxes, no matter the underlying root issue: it brings socioeconomic stratification into MMORPGs.  That's not what this genre was ever about.  Indeed, it's not what gaming itself was ever about, specifically not role playing games.

    No matter the reasoning for it, it's created a hugely detrimental issue in and of itself.  Subscriptions do not, even if the games are created with maximizing subscription times in mind.  That reason alone makes it worth it, in my opinion, to move away from the system as quickly as humanly possible.
    Subscriptions created a stratification between those who could play or not and those who could play more. Your premise is based on the assumption that sinking more time is okay, but money is not. From history we know that there was a lot of stratification in subscription locked mmos.

    MMOs are sold on the promise of exclusion and stratification and have been for a long time. Pre-order bonus items, collector's edition bonus items, exclusive items, "high-end" content that only a few can do, tiered subscriptions, multiple accounts, and gated expansions.

    The hugely detrimental issue has always existed and reaches outside of monetization. Guilds are the social implementation of exclusion and stratification. People who love subs love those organic social structures that allow them to impose their will on the larger playerbase. Want to run dungeons or raids? Only upon approval.

    How about a-list and b-list raid teams? How about primary and secondary guilds? How about lone wolf and duo teams that are excluded from end game gear for not raiding. Don't try and preach about social equity in a genre built on "play to crush".

    Besides that still ignores the root issue with mmo monetization and that's tying money to progression which is why I said she missed the point.
    Slapshot1188Liljna
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,944
    Torval said:

    People who love subs love those organic social structures that allow them to impose their will on the larger playerbase.
    Wow... way to generalize, stereotype and project your opinion as fact.  No wonder we don't agree.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    cloud3431 said:
    it's not like p2w hasn't been around since the beginning of gaming. you pay to win the game.......i really don't get why it's a bad thing for f2p games to want to make money to keep their game alive for thousands of players. or even b2p having a cash shop. the base price isn't enough to keep it going for years maybe 10s of years. if you're planning on play a game for free, it shouldn't be a problem for others to pay to keep the game alive for you to play for free. most overlook(don't know how either) this fact. but don't whine about the ones that spend any kind of money, obviously they're going to get an advantage(if they even do get one), they paid for it. which, makes you able to play for free even longer. gotta love when people overlook this simple thing.
    What about people who don't want to play for free but want an even playing field?  How'd you miss such a "simple thing"?

    You miss the root issue so it can't be that hard. You're living in the same lifeboat and it's still sinking.
    Pot meet kettle
    While I can't comment on the pot or the kettle in this instance, I think that it's, again, worth noting the unfortunate side effect of microtransactions and RNG loot boxes, no matter the underlying root issue: it brings socioeconomic stratification into MMORPGs.  That's not what this genre was ever about.  Indeed, it's not what gaming itself was ever about, specifically not role playing games.

    No matter the reasoning for it, it's created a hugely detrimental issue in and of itself.  Subscriptions do not, even if the games are created with maximizing subscription times in mind.  That reason alone makes it worth it, in my opinion, to move away from the system as quickly as humanly possible.
    Subscriptions created a stratification between those who could play or not and those who could play more. Your premise is based on the assumption that sinking more time is okay, but money is not. From history we know that there was a lot of stratification in subscription locked mmos.

    MMOs are sold on the promise of exclusion and stratification and have been for a long time. Pre-order bonus items, collector's edition bonus items, exclusive items, "high-end" content that only a few can do, tiered subscriptions, multiple accounts, and gated expansions.

    The hugely detrimental issue has always existed and reaches outside of monetization. Guilds are the social implementation of exclusion and stratification. People who love subs love those organic social structures that allow them to impose their will on the larger playerbase. Want to run dungeons or raids? Only upon approval.

    How about a-list and b-list raid teams? How about primary and secondary guilds? How about lone wolf and duo teams that are excluded from end game gear for not raiding. Don't try and preach about social equity in a genre built on "play to crush".

    Besides that still ignores the root issue with mmo monetization and that's tying money to progression which is why I said she missed the point.
    Time stratification is entirely different.  Time accrues at the same rate for everyone; money does not.  That is the reason folks are okay with aka "no-lifers" having extra stuff while they, as a casual, do not.

    Spending time and money are fundamentally different, which is why you don't see economists separating populations by how many hours they earn in a day.  It sounds downright silly, put that way.


    I've never run into any instance in which I felt a guild "imposed their will" upon me.  Maybe because I'm no hardcore raider; I don't have the time to be.  But it doesnt bother me that others do and enjoy it, because I spend more time away from my computer doing other things that are important to me.  
    Slapshot1188

    image
  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,993
    edited July 2017
    SEANMCAD said:
    Tamanous said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I keep getting a kick out of people complaining about cash shops, loot boxes and microtransactions in the games they choose to play while ignoring statements like I am about to make.

    'games i play do not  have those things'
    That is what I have been stressing. The only answer is boycotting this form of RMT abuse. Developers now view video games as gambling vendor machines. They are part of casino expansion yet without regulation. This is a total cash grab and western gaming is only going to get worse:

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-07-18-how-gacha-can-benefit-western-game-developers

    Anyone supporting this is part of the corruption. Complacent ignorance.

    This is a battle to save the industry. I am not overstating this.

    well to be clear that is not my position.

    I think gambling in a game is fine. I cant justify arguing that a 'game' that involves 'dice' should not be in a 'game' that has RNG.

    HOWEVER, games I like to play and do play and enjoy play and having been playing and wouldnt mind sharing a list of why its fun do not have these features so its all coool
    Then I am a little confused at your position. I am talking about RMT, not RNG which is a staple in game mechanics long before RMT entered game design.

    Dice rolling to determine an outcome in a game isn't gambling. Certainly you gamble on an outcome (but hardly against your favor in most mmos anyway) but clearly we are talking about real money integration into game mechanics.

    I don't give a shit if there are entire casinos in an mmo if rewards are within the confines of the game. RMT, commonly through F2P systems, is where real world gambling begins and gaming ends.

    You stay sassy!

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,512
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    cloud3431 said:
    it's not like p2w hasn't been around since the beginning of gaming. you pay to win the game.......i really don't get why it's a bad thing for f2p games to want to make money to keep their game alive for thousands of players. or even b2p having a cash shop. the base price isn't enough to keep it going for years maybe 10s of years. if you're planning on play a game for free, it shouldn't be a problem for others to pay to keep the game alive for you to play for free. most overlook(don't know how either) this fact. but don't whine about the ones that spend any kind of money, obviously they're going to get an advantage(if they even do get one), they paid for it. which, makes you able to play for free even longer. gotta love when people overlook this simple thing.
    What about people who don't want to play for free but want an even playing field?  How'd you miss such a "simple thing"?

    You miss the root issue so it can't be that hard. You're living in the same lifeboat and it's still sinking.
    Pot meet kettle
    While I can't comment on the pot or the kettle in this instance, I think that it's, again, worth noting the unfortunate side effect of microtransactions and RNG loot boxes, no matter the underlying root issue: it brings socioeconomic stratification into MMORPGs.  That's not what this genre was ever about.  Indeed, it's not what gaming itself was ever about, specifically not role playing games.

    No matter the reasoning for it, it's created a hugely detrimental issue in and of itself.  Subscriptions do not, even if the games are created with maximizing subscription times in mind.  That reason alone makes it worth it, in my opinion, to move away from the system as quickly as humanly possible.
    Subscriptions created a stratification between those who could play or not and those who could play more. Your premise is based on the assumption that sinking more time is okay, but money is not. From history we know that there was a lot of stratification in subscription locked mmos.

    MMOs are sold on the promise of exclusion and stratification and have been for a long time. Pre-order bonus items, collector's edition bonus items, exclusive items, "high-end" content that only a few can do, tiered subscriptions, multiple accounts, and gated expansions.

    The hugely detrimental issue has always existed and reaches outside of monetization. Guilds are the social implementation of exclusion and stratification. People who love subs love those organic social structures that allow them to impose their will on the larger playerbase. Want to run dungeons or raids? Only upon approval.

    How about a-list and b-list raid teams? How about primary and secondary guilds? How about lone wolf and duo teams that are excluded from end game gear for not raiding. Don't try and preach about social equity in a genre built on "play to crush".

    Besides that still ignores the root issue with mmo monetization and that's tying money to progression which is why I said she missed the point.
    Time stratification is entirely different.  Time accrues at the same rate for everyone; money does not.  That is the reason folks are okay with aka "no-lifers" having extra stuff while they, as a casual, do not.

    Spending time and money are fundamentally different, which is why you don't see economists separating populations by how many hours they earn in a day.  It sounds downright silly, put that way.


    I've never run into any instance in which I felt a guild "imposed their will" upon me.  Maybe because I'm no hardcore raider; I don't have the time to be.  But it doesnt bother me that others do and enjoy it, because I spend more time away from my computer doing other things that are important to me.  
    Time isn't able to be spent equitably by all though. It's only equitable if those with excess time and the resources to exploit that to its fullest can only gain as much as those who can't, otherwise it's not equitable.

    The issue isn't whether you, me, or anyone has ever run into the fringe case. The premise is whether or not it affects the game or genre as a whole. Case in point, isn't one of the core social premises Pantheon is being built on that social reputation matters, and by all claims EQ was and is, which is another way of saying the same thing. Guilds with the power to run content and contest spawns control and affect those who can't.

    There is a lot of inequitable aspects built into social gaming. I agree that buying boosts and buffs, cosmetics, gear, storage, or anything else in a cash shop isn't equitable. But using that as an argument fails because so much of the rest of the designs in mmos aren't equitable when they could be. They're in that state because mmo gamers like it that way.

    The reason loot crates, cash shops, and subs as they're all currently designed are "bad" is because the root issue is how mmos are setup for monetization though progression. Until that changes it can never get better and could always get worse.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • RenoakuRenoaku Member EpicPosts: 3,053
Sign In or Register to comment.