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

124»

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited July 2017
    Torval said:
    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.
    You're still ignoring the fundamental difference.

    It's fundamentally different and, as such, has a fundamentally different effect on the playerbase and gameplay.  I never attempted to submit that it has no effect.  It's not nearly as detrimental as socioeconomic stratification, again, for the reasons previously cited.


    Can we ever reach 100% equity in these things?  No, and I don't think anyone ever expected that.  But, and I can't emphasize this enough, there's a significant difference between time and money.  Time does not accrue interest; it cannot be banked to be released at a later time; it cannot be used to tip your waiter; it cannot pay the developer's bill, either.  You cannot get a "time raise" at work, enabling you to increase your overall "time wealth."  It's so different that it's hard, in many ways, to even compare it to money.

    image
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    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.
    It is not really a problem that a game cost money, I think everyone already knows that. The problem with P2Win is elsewhere:

    PvP wise it is not a good idea. The more in game advantage people get for anything the less fun PvP becomes. Time spent, luck and cash spent all means less fun fights. And when you mix in time spent (in other words level), gear found and payed advantage you make a already bad problem worse.

    PvE wise the problem is different. What is the main motivator for most PvE fans? First it tend to be leveling and once they completed that it tends to be about gear. And while there can be a story to complete as well that one usually is short and completed fast. So selling levels or ways to level fast and gear means you take away the motivation to play. 

    Yes, people PvE for fun as well but the MMORPGs tend to focus most of that fun on gaining XP and looting new better gear. Selling the things that motivates people to stay in the game sounds like a rather bad idea to me at least.

    Now, there are plenty of things you actually can sell that doesn't devolve the fun, character & bank slots, cosmetic stuff, cosmetic races, mounts and even actual content in expansions and mini expansions (like a dungeon or an open world zone). Those are all fine and you can obviously earn more then enough on that since more then a few B2P and F2P games actually do.

    I know some whales and they actually are the people I know that stay shortest in a particular game, I can't base much of a theory on a few people but I don't think whales are the ones that stay in the same game long. They do give a good income a short while (usually when the game is new) but I think the whole thing hurt the game more then it helps.
    xyzercrime
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,565
    Torval said:
    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.
    Short of making MMOs B2P what system of monetization besides progression would you favor?

    F2P with all cosmetics for sale the cash shop, is that better? Doesn't solve the time stratification issue you raised which I agree was always a source of inequity for those of us unwilling to devote our lives to gaming.

    I preferred EVEs system to all others (well until recently) when everyone could pay the same sub rate and progress at the same rate regardless of available free play time.

    The recent introduction of skill injectors changed the model but has no real impact on a player whose characters already have a high number of skills as mine do.


    "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






  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,511
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    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.
    You're still ignoring the fundamental difference.

    It's fundamentally different and, as such, has a fundamentally different effect on the playerbase and gameplay.  I never attempted to submit that it has no effect.  It's not nearly as detrimental as socioeconomic stratification, again, for the reasons previously cited.


    Can we ever reach 100% equity in these things?  No, and I don't think anyone ever expected that.  But, and I can't emphasize this enough, there's a significant difference between time and money.  Time does not accrue interest; it cannot be banked to be released at a later time; it cannot be used to tip your waiter; it cannot pay the developer's bill, either.  You cannot get a "time raise" at work, enabling you to uncrease your overall "time wealth."  It's so different that it's hard, in many ways, to even compare it to money.
    Okay, I understand and didn't acknowledge that they do affect them in different ways. The old way isn't acceptable either. So while the new way has its bad points I'm not going to support moving backwards either.

    There are a lot of characteristics that differ time and money. Time is by far the more powerful and valuable of the two. Without time you can't make money. You can lose money and regain it, but never is that true with time. Money doesn't accrue interest, savings does. You don't need money to accrue interest on a valued good or commodity, that's just a convenience system.

    Earlier in the thread you said:
    I was just about to add that it's been scientifically studied and proved (in so far as science gives universal "truths") that a certain percentage of folks will always try to cheat when there's a benefit to be had from cheating.  The fact that folks will attempt to skirt rules is not a valid argument for eliminating said rule.
    I find that statement in ironic contrast and opposition to your last paragraph excusing the rest of inequities in MMOs. It's inconsistent. Just because you don't see an equitable system as achievable doesn't excuse keeping inequitable design systems that you happen to be comfortable with.

    It still comes down to monetizing progression. You may be okay with making arbitrary exceptions to what's acceptable and not, but nothing will change until that does. All the ways we were and are charged are just semantics. Removing the lootbox won't make the situation better. It will just be shifted somewhere else.
    MadFrenchiexyzercrimeLiljna
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited July 2017
    Torval said:

    Okay, I understand and didn't acknowledge that they do affect them in different ways. The old way isn't acceptable either. So while the new way has its bad points I'm not going to support moving backwards either.

    There are a lot of characteristics that differ time and money. Time is by far the more powerful and valuable of the two. Without time you can't make money. You can lose money and regain it, but never is that true with time. Money doesn't accrue interest, savings does. You don't need money to accrue interest on a valued good or commodity, that's just a convenience system.

    Earlier in the thread you said:
    I was just about to add that it's been scientifically studied and proved (in so far as science gives universal "truths") that a certain percentage of folks will always try to cheat when there's a benefit to be had from cheating.  The fact that folks will attempt to skirt rules is not a valid argument for eliminating said rule.
    I find that statement in ironic contrast and opposition to your last paragraph excusing the rest of inequities in MMOs. It's inconsistent. Just because you don't see an equitable system as achievable doesn't excuse keeping inequitable design systems that you happen to be comfortable with.

    It still comes down to monetizing progression. You may be okay with making arbitrary exceptions to what's acceptable and not, but nothing will change until that does. All the ways we were and are charged are just semantics. Removing the lootbox won't make the situation better. It will just be shifted somewhere else.
    I understand you, and if we can find a better revenue model than subs that provides more equity, I'm all for it.  B2P is awesome, but I long for something in the MMORPG genre that is evolving and responding to player input at a much higher rate than B2P can realistically afford.

    Subscriptions have been used for a variety of services and products for a simple reason: it's a fairly equitable way to provide consistent service and additional content to consumers with a more stable revenue stream than microtransactions can afford.  Look at how Netflix and Hulu used their booming popularity to begin offering their own unique brand of (high quality) content to customers on a regular basis.  That's the goal for subscription-based MMORPGs, too: a steady stream of high-quality content in exchange for an overly stable and continuous revenue stream from your customers.

    I agree that, at this point, the subscription has not brought that at nearly a high enough rate to make it seem like a good value in today's market.  But I still believe it offers the best means for developers to work on creative content freely, without worrying about finishing that new Mount Skin in time for the summer sale on the cash shop.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    TorvalKyleran

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.